[Zavien Doombringer]

So, law is the basis of truth?

Truth is an absolute, not a law... You can break a law, but you cannot break an absolute.

Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone.

[Dimensio]

So, law is the basis of truth?

I said nothing of truth. In science, a law is nothing more than a generalization of an observed pattern from which predictions of future observations can be made. It is possible that a law models "truth", but it is also possible that a "law" is inaccurate or incorrect.

Truth is an absolute, not a law... You can break a law, but you cannot break an absolute.

I said nothing of truth. I only addressed an incorrect equivocation between "laws" as rules of conduct imposed by a governing entity and "laws" as defined by scientists. It appears as though you are using the same false equivocation, as "breaking" a law applies to the former definition. The latter only allows for such laws to be falsified, or determined to be inaccurate.

Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone.

I do not understand how this relates to my previous comments. What point are you attempting to make?

[js1138]

And the sun shines more brightly on those lucky individuals who have access to the absolute truth.

[atlaw]

Truth is truth, for all things in all places in all time. Truth is the same absolute for everyone.

This is a relatively common overstatment. While I cannot, of course, put a precise percentage on it, I would guess that truth is non-absolute, or relative, in greater than 50% of circumstances. As a rudimentary example (from which you can extrapolate any number of additional examples), what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?