To argue that truth doesn't exist is to have as a conclusion the statement, T = Truth doesn't exist. The question that naturally follows is, is T true/false. If it's true then the argument is self-refuting and truths do exist and if it's false then also truths exist.

To say truths don't exist is an untenable position.

Yeah that's why I found it to be stupid. He said no one can detect or understand truth, if that's the case then why make an argument for the truth of his claim on the internet then?

I found it to be stupid — Darkneos

I wouldn't go that far. The author probably means that there's no such thing as THE TRUTH by which I mean to refer to that ever elusive, all-encompassing, ultimate, truth of all truths that many cultures, in some form or another, have been in search of. THE TRUTH, if I may hazard a guess, is that single proposition that would allow us to make sense of everything there is - it would provide an answer to every conceivable question we can muster about the universe and all in it. To make it clearer, the scientific version of THE TRUTH is the yet-undiscovered GRAND UNIFIED THEORY but THE TRUTH that I'm talking about is much, much grander of course.

no one can detect or understand truth — Darkneos

Read this sentence in the context of the above.

Or, truth is just an abstract collective noun that refers to what all true statements have in common, namely being true. And I do not think you can get beyond that for truth.

I believe the author of the QUORA post is conflating two kinds of truths. Fae is basically equivocating with the following two kinds of truths:

1. Truth type 1: Reality as it really is

2. Truth type 2: The truth value (true/false) of a proposition

Fae mentions that and I quote, "reality is being made up" and if that's true then it becomes possible that we don't/can't know truth type 1. A Cartesian skepticism apparent therein.

Truth type 2 is different though. Even in a completely made-up "reality" certain propositions about it will correspond to occurrences/states/objects in that made-up "reality." In other words there'll be truth type 2 even in a made-up "reality."

The author of the post first makes the claim that truth type 1 can't/don't exist because "reality" itself, in that case, is nonexistent/illusory. Nothing smells fishy so far.

Faer next step, however, is problematic to say the least because he seems to be drawing a conclusion about truth type 2. Faer argument would collapse at this point for two reasons:

1. It's self-refuting
2. Fae's equivocating

It's honestly hard to get at what they are trying to say because most of their posts are a mess to read. Saying that properties of matter are not real since they are not material which I don't think is true. If that is the case then diamond and graphite are the same thing even though they are both carbon.

:ok:

You can share all day long but nobody has, does, will observe mass (no-thing) or energy (no-thing). All that anybody observes is some-thing that HAS mass and aequivalent energy respevtively, dear friend.

I mean technically you do observe mass when you weigh something on a scale and we do observe energy everyday in terms of color, light and soundwaves.

I mean technically you do observe mass when you weigh something on a scale and we do observe energy everyday in terms of color, light and soundwaves. — Darkneos

Yes, we have standards of measurement so when we say that an object has such and such properties, we can easily confirm it to be true or not.

When it comes to subjects that can't be measured such as feelings, or personal experience, then it becomes more tricky because we would need more than just testimony to confirm a statement.

He also keeps throwing this at me but I've honestly never heard of it before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_reference#:~:text=The%20triangle%20of%20reference%20(also,1923)%20by%20Ogden%20and%20Richards.

Dear friend, thank you for sharing. Which has no bearing on the fact that mass has no mass and has no aequivalent energy respectively, iow can NOT be detected let alone be observed, and energy has NO energy and NO aequivalent mass, respectively, hence cannot be detected let alone observed. Properties exist but as an abstract object on the paper - where they are correlated, corresponded. Energy is corresponded to mass and velocity, as every pupil learns in the school. Feel free to share this, too! IF you even share the original text, which I can coarsely verify by the displayed growth / number of views on my posting. Kind regards from GERMANY!

I believed he called it the reification fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)