Ben,

I believe that in a comment of mine on one of your works I asked if you had one about what the truth is. I also believe that you replied, as you always respond to the comments you receive, that maybe you would write it.

This text of yours, by the title, excited me.

It is excellent. I think I understood everything.

I made some notes, like these:

"For example, is it true or false that Jesus Christ is dead? The answer is that he's dead if we interpret death in physical terms, but if we reinterpret them in spiritual ones, the correct answer, according to Christians, is that Jesus is still alive".

I think you speak of some Christian religions; for the Roman Catholic Christ is dead as a human being; I live only in Heaven (another game-like stipulation?). Rastafarianism regards him as the living Christ. Four or five years ago, a friend of my son's gave him a typed text, I don't remember the title, a bunch of descriptions and allusions, which claimed to be from a church or sect in Ethiopia, which claimed that the risen Christ was alive, anticipating the Armageddon, or that Armageddon had already happened, and the task of its faithful was to enlighten the world, keep away from filth (?), and convert the wicked and exiles, or something like that.

How I didn't care about that copy; maybe you can tell if it makes any sense.

"Scientists understand what they're talking about only when they translate the artificial language into a natural one and use analogies to simplify the exotic or abstract scientific concepts".

You also used analogies to explain in natural language some concepts or passages; do you and other scientists of philosophy also talk by simplifying abstract concepts? Are they also game-like stipulations?

"We may try to improve our sources of information, searching for better authors to read or teachers to follow, but that assessment is largely a matter of trust". "Some authorities may have an objective track record of success, but those results will themselves be subject to doubt, in which case we need a fact checker to check the fact checker". and thank you for the link you inserted: I opened and liked the article by Abde Amr, and left my comments; I still haven't received an answer.

I wrote "I think I understand everything"; if so. I understood that it's a horror: there's no way to define "truth" fully, and probably never will be.

Thank you!