Imagine that there is nothing around you. Nothing in the Universe. ( No point in logic, I just want to start from a point of no assumptions)
You have made no assumptions so far.
(Just asking you to imagine it, not stating that there is actually nothing or anything)

Now, to assign a property to any object that you might observe, you first start with giving it a first property. We need properties to discuss objects. You need to give this property a name. Let’s give this property the name “existence”. Could have been “pink”, but we gave it the name “existence”, for the sake of it.
(Any mapping can be seen as an observation). Let’s intuitively explain observation as “link between two points”. In this case all objects are mapped to existence. The links are observation.
For example,
The bottle in front of me , exists.
The bottle in front of me being 10 cm is true is equivalent to bottle exists at 10 cm and so on...

Now, I argue that truth can be mapped to this existence set or property. ( Set of all such properties of all objects)
Now, we need to define truth, and non truth or false, to distinguish between mappings you already have vs. mappings in the total set of mappings possible, because the latter set could be larger than the former set.

In order to define something, we need comparisons. Define A to be x transpose. A is compared to x, and so on..

So we can compare existence to other objects and other properties ( no other property than existence is given so far).

Now, if we were to form a question and an answer, or ask statements. Let’s first give the statement: “ Existence can be defined”. We have not yet defined a true and false, but let's assume as such that we will be able to do so in the future to talk about it first hand.
Is this statement true is the next question we must answer, because existence is the only mapping that “this”, statement has. We assigned this property to every sentence in observation or to any sentence possible, which we could make(The sentence would be an object).

Questions become a little more interesting. Any machine must be able to solve a problem, and hence we must be able to pose questions to it. Take for example, any command you give to the computer as a question. It must answer it in binary, 0 and 1. It’s almost the same here, but we will generalize it to yes or no. No if it cannot answer.

Let’s pose the question, “Can existence be defined?”. The answer to this question is no, because to define existence, we would need the set of all statements possible. (We cannot get this set completely because of limited observation)

Now, we argue that this question and answer statement is the point of maximum existence, or the point which captures the entire existence set. If we argue that “Can existence be defined to any links or mappings which we have?” Since the total number of mappings is unknown, we have to say No to this question, because if were to do so, we would miss the entire existence set. (since we would have substituted unknown number of mappings with a known number).

Since we cannot use all objects and all other properties to discuss existence, it cannot be defined.
So a machine, could possibly answer the question “ Can existence be defined”, as a No.
“Can existence be defined wrt sentence A, or B or C or…”, are also No. (Subsets of the question).
Note that this set of sentences has a one to one mapping with the entire existence set.

Now, we know not by definition, but by applying logic, that this Q&A set is the point of maximum of existence. It’s at least one set which has a one to one mapping. Any other set I might form, might have less mappings, but not more.

Now, let’s define a true and false set.
Truth is that which has a mapping to this Q&A set.
False is that which does not have a mapping to this Q&A set.

This true and false, is a different set compared to the existence set which we had earlier.

Anyone would be interested in a discussion ?