Truth may not be the same thing over time, it may not even be the same thing for all people.
What is Truth?
It seems that Truth is a linguistic device variously theorized to mean anything from scientifically proven fact to socially acceptable construct. Truth is a framework upon which society as a whole can pin certain events in a fixed multi dimensional matrix. For a subject to conform to the definition of Truth, the logical position or location of a truth must always remain fixed so that different people may find it in the same place, though they may use alternate paths to reach a conclusion. Truth does not appear to require unanimous agreement, simply logically reasonable underpinnings and a majority acceptance. Flat Earth societies are evidence of dissent, which does not sway the public perception. However, there are arguments to reality and existence, which suggest that Cognitive Truth may not be the final answer to anything.
Perhaps Truth can best be defined by it’s absence. Deliberate distortion and dissemination of information, which the reporter of events knows to be nonfactual is the most obvious example of untruth, usually called lies.
The greatest danger of the deliberate introduction of large numbers of untruths is that the framework of information becomes corrupted so that an investigating person cannot find the expected result at the expected location within the matrix of reality. Much like your computer, these corrupted areas become a weakness and a liability. Any information drawn from these zones is immediately suspect because the underpinning data does not exist.
For a social item to conform to the requirements of truth, it must be a mutually supporting fiber in the fabric of our society. Those facts which do not perform in this manner are obvious anomalies, much like bad weaving or pattern flaws. Logic and intellect do not allow the same freedom as is afforded to impressionist art. Events which do not conform to logical progression or established fact, are immediately upsetting to our equilibrium. Events which do not conform, lead us to the conclusion that either our perception is flawed or we are being mislead. When there are too many instances where we cannot trust our perceptions, then people become very frightened. The senses are useless and even dangerous if the information they deliver cannot be trusted.
For several thousands of years, since the dawn of organized civilization, humans have lived with a society constructed upon ritual and hierarchy. As civilization progressed this structure became increasingly complex, till we reached the point where very few were allowed access to the inner sanctums of power and knowledge. While this may sound like a description of the ancient Egyptian or Inca kingdoms, it applies equally to the present. The real power of any mature culture resides in the hands of a very small fixed group. The implied strength of this group is that with their knowledge and control of the structure, they are in a position to distort, or even, to collapse the structure at their whim. Not that such an action would be in the interests of the Elite. But, the threat is sufficient because the cumulative fear of the ignorant masses is greater than their discontent. This mutual dependency continues until some disruptive and yet persuasive force arises, which can convince the people that they would be happier under different masters. Very seldom, have humans tried to achieve independence from authority. Perhaps, our genes still contain too much simian DNA.
The core concept of the Truth Matrix Project is very simple. It is based on crowd sourcing credibility for any published item. Much like the “Rule of Error” theory which states that the larger the sample base of measurement, the greater the degree of accuracy. The “Rule of error” however, presupposes a standardized measurement tool. In measuring social truths, we are not afforded this luxury. Every person has a unique and different set of tools in their mental toolbox. Every person also has been subjected to an unique set of biases and has lived in an uniquely different environment.
Therefore, if we attempt to rank published “Truths” purely on the basis of social media “Likes”, the results might be meaningless as they will be hopelessly skewed by social popularity and by the biases of mainstream media publications.
What I propose instead is the creation of a peer-ranked system for the verification of any social item. In democratic fashion, each registered user of the system has only one vote/thumb. However, over time, both contributors and judges accumulate a weighting which contributes to, or detracts from, the value of that judgment.
Because of social media and very large computational capacity, such a calculation is now possible on a Global scale. We have arrived at a point where it is possible to present all people with a comparative view of the two faces of Truth. On one hand we have the external, or imposed Truth of authoritative entities, disseminated by the media. On the other hand, we have the internal or personal Truth of what individuals perceive.
No person can claim competence to know the Truth of every instance. But, I believe that all people have an inherent right to make a personal choice with the best information possible.