Truth is the communicated representation of unified reality.

Truth is not what someone believes; it's what they say. The reason it matters what people say is because it affects their minds, lives and relation to the universe.

Perception and knowledge are not truth. Communication is needed for commitment and accountability.

Unified reality is the combination of all realities which have consistent relationships between them. It includes most of spiritual life and most of material life.

Therefore, the test of truth is consistent relationships between realities. Logic is the strictest test of relationships. Reason is making relationships, usually by adding evidence to a subject.

Nobody can arbitrate truth or say exactly what it is. One major reason is because words are too limited and imperfect representations of anything to convey in any perfect way even a small part of unified reality.

Another major problem is that words never enter a persons mind meaning the exact same thing they meant when they left another person's mind.

Another problem is that a large context is needed to properly represent truth. Since truth is determined by relationships, all significant relationships determine its meaning, and they are numerous. They create the context of truth.

What this all means is that truth can only evolve, as understanding increases in minds. Consider the world being round. It's a truth that evolved as evidence increased.

Another important thing to know is that truth evolves forward automatically as realities interact. Evolution of truth cannot be prevented when realities interact. And the interaction of realities does not have to result from communication. Events are very powerful sources of truth.

This occurs because whenever realities interact, the consistent relationships are reinforced by evidence, and the inconsistent relationships are weakened by contradictions. The strengthening of the consistent relationships is the evolution of truth.

Therefore, what people are supposed to be doing is adding evidence to truth through a process of reason (primarily criticism), not arbitrating truth.

What is the difference between reason and arbitrating truth? One difference is the expectation. Arbitrators of truth tolerate no dissent. They assume they are at an endpoint. Reasonable persons are satisfied with a little forward progress as increased understanding knowing that there never is an endpoint in increasing truth or understanding.

There is a lot of difference in methodology. Arbitrators of truth do not show evidence or adequately explain their position. Reasonable persons explain evidence as much as possible.

A large part of evidence for truth is in relationships between realities. Showing the relationships is how truth is increased.