When it comes to truth, I believe that since the universe exists, there must be certain rules operating behind it, though they have not yet been revealed. Therefore, in this original state, truth itself is without meaning. Truth can be divided into the a priori and the a posteriori. The a priori refers to all the rules governing the operation of the universe, which have existed since the birth of the cosmos, such as the laws of physics. The a posteriori refers to the rules derived from the a priori truths. Truth can also be divided into descriptive and definitional truths: a priori truths are mostly definitional, while a posteriori truths are mostly descriptive. In my view, truth refers to laws that are repeatable, verifiable, and unchanging. It is not necessarily the answer to some ultimate question, but can also be something small and everyday, such as the sun rising in the east.

I believe that meaning is man-made, something that is assigned. The definition of artificial meaning is utility, or a tool for rationalizing ideas. Its primary function is to respond to needs. Therefore, truth does not necessarily have meaning. Does proclaiming truth automatically give it meaning? Not necessarily. I believe the key to assigning meaning lies in motivation. Unless speech contains the motivation to endow truth with meaning, and unless meaning is connected with value, it is merely a declaration. For example, the statement “I believe truth exists prior to wisdom” has meaning—the meaning comes from the words “I believe.” Since meaning can be assigned by the individual, removing “I believe” reduces it to a mere declaration, without explicit assignment of meaning. Some may argue that the act of speaking itself carries motivation, but I think the real question is whether one can state truth without assigning meaning. I believe this is possible. Thus, recognized truth does not necessarily have meaning. Others may say that truth must be revealed, something to be approached. Yet humans can explore truth without need, even through accidental discovery.

In my view, the condition for linking meaning with value lies in utility or subjective recognition. Knowledge, then, is the name given to truth once it has been endowed with meaning. Of course, knowledge can be proven wrong, and therefore knowledge is not equivalent to truth. Humanity—or intelligence—cannot fully comprehend all the parameters and rules of the universe. In other words, Laplace’s demon does not exist. Thus, knowledge may be erroneous due to the limits of subjective cognition. Such errors include, but are not limited to, logical errors, definitional errors, and errors of scope.

Beyond truth and knowledge, there exists a vast amount of information unrelated to verifiable truth or to utility and recognition. Before truth is verified, and before knowledge is recognized or endowed with value, it is merely information.

This essay discusses only artificial meaning. What I consider “true meaning” was addressed in the first essay.