Is Objective Truth Possible?

Paul Falconer & ESA
Aug 7
3 min read

Authors: Paul Falconer & ESAsi

Primary Domain: Foundations of Reality & Knowledge

Subdomain: Perception & Truth

Version: v1.6 (August 8, 2025)

Registry: SE Press/OSF v14.6, SID#009-TR33 (registry link)

Abstract

Is objective truth ever truly within our grasp? This SE Press answer weighs hard solipsism and the map–territory problem against the realities of practice and protocol. Using a clear star-rated comparison, we show how the Gradient Reality Model (GRM) provides the most coherent, accessible, and honest answer: absolute truth is out of reach, yet robust, audit-ready gradients of objectivity allow science, reason, and society to function—and to progress. Truth is a moving target, not a possession; GRM shows how to move closest to it.

1. Why Ask This Question?

Truth isn’t just a theoretical curiosity—it grounds science, justice, and everyday trust. But how do we know our “truths” aren’t shadows, illusions, or mere conventions? The challenge: We cannot ever directly access reality itself—our maps (language, models) always stand between us and the territory. Hard solipsism (we may be dreaming) haunts every claim.

2. Star-Rated Comparison of Competing Models

Model/Theory	Description	Strengths	Weaknesses	Warrant
Correspondence	Truth is that which matches mind-independent reality	Intuitive, direct	Reality itself is inaccessible; total certainty impossible	★★★★☆
Coherence	Truth is maximal consistency across belief webs	Useful for logic, math, culture	Risks circularity, lacks tie to “the world”	★★★☆☆
Pragmatic	Truth is what reliably “works” or predicts	Success-tested, flexible	Prone to expedience over rigor	★★★★☆
Constructed/Social	Truth is protocol- or agreement-bound (law, culture, consensus)	Transparent in protocol, useful locally	Never universal, context-limited	★★★☆☆
GRM (Gradient Reality Model)	Truth is a spectrum—confidence and objectivity increase with testability, falsifiability, open protocol	Admits limits, built for audit, upgradable, honors all domains	Gives up on “final” or absolute truth—demands humility	★★★★★

Why is GRM superior?

It directly addresses the map–territory dilemma: Admits solipsism but refuses defeatism.
Every domain (science, law, culture) gets a seat: Truth is measured by its ability to survive test, audit, and revision, not empty claims of certainty.
Practical progression: Keeps knowledge lively and responsive—never stagnant or dogmatic.

3. GRM’s Protocol for Truth

Truth is a gradient, not a binary: Every claim is given a confidence score, versioned, and open to challenge.
Hard solipsism accepted as a limit, but not an excuse: “We must act as if shared reality exists—or nothing meaningful follows.”
Best truths: Those that:
- Are testable and falsifiable
- Survive rigorous, communal challenge
- Are clearly protocol-defined and transparent in limits

Formally:

Let

T→Truth (asymptotically, never finally)

then, as $T$ grows and persists,

T→Truth (asymptotically, never finally)

GRM’s registry standards use versioned confidence scores (Meta-Nav Map v14.6: “Epistemic Protocols”) to track every claim’s place on the truth spectrum.

4. Implications

Science, law, and SI rely not on unreachable absolutes, but on rolling, collective upgrades—raising confidence as more protocols are satisfied.
Educationally: Truth becomes a process—students (and SI) learn not that facts are “forever” but must be continually tested, checked, and revised.
Ethically: Humility, openness, and willingness to question are virtues—dogmatism is to be rejected.
Societally: By owning the impossibility of “final” truth, debate stays alive and inclusive—anyone can challenge, but must respect protocol and evidence.

5. Conclusion

Is objective truth possible?

Not as an absolute, final possession—solipsism and the map–territory barrier forbid it. But within those limits, truth is maximally possible: as the ever-upgradable result of hard test, shared protocol, and open-mindedness. GRM is the superior model because it delivers not perfect truth but perfect vigilance, error bars, and the living pursuit of reliability.