Truth is fundamentally a judgement. A judgement on relations, an event, an idea, etc. So, Truth presupposes a judging being. There exists no Truth in the world as if it is an object waiting to be discovered. It has no "objective" existence because a judgement existing outside of a judger is absurd. A judgement is based on a way of understanding, or in other words, a knowledge-base, a set of principles, a rationale. In Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he claims that the determination of scientific facts needs a paradigm (a way of understanding), which enables the interpreting of data in order to find what is relevant from what is not - allowing facts to be established. Without the paradigm there is no way to order information; everything is relevant; interpretation has no aim; there's no way to judge. Likewise, Truth requires a paradigm in order to be declared as so. Using a generic example, there are two paradigms: Religious and Scientific. (Think of Classic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics for something more interesting). The religious paradigm contains a world-view (another way to think of paradigm). It is set by specific beliefs and practices and values. Accordingly, it has a way of determining what is true from what is not. Science also contains a world-view. It determines its own version of truth based on its specific criteria. Which one of these paradigms is true? This requires a paradigm which not only has to contain the two mentioned but also another that transcends them. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm... This does not mean there is no Truth, or that it is relative. The language we use to make these concepts (subjective/objective, relative/absolute) and the inherent logic of the concepts does not capture the full resolution needed to accurately talk about Truth. Any many other things. Truth has utility - not only for making sense of a complex world but also for guiding us. Ultimately the pragmatic approach is the only viable option when facing infinity.
Reality is an illusion/projection/hologram.
This is what quantum physics tells us but this is not wholly the truth for us. Scientific observation of reality is an isolated interpretation of inadequate human comprehension. Scientific studies in the fields of quantum physics and the deconstruction of reality does not tell us a truth about reality, it tells us a scientific conception of reality.
For the scientific study to function, it must work outside the subjectivity of human experience, this subjectivity is what compromises the whole of our experience, phenomenologically and ontologically. To isolate itself outside of the confines of our experience is to estrange the perspective of what is real for us into a objectively incomprehensible “alien” perspective, this perspective exists only in a negation of the dualism between objectivity and subjectivity. The problem with this is that we must be able to interpret this negation of subjectivity subjectively.
The comprehension calls for a subjective interpretation, the interpretation of an abstraction formulated by concepts to help understand and make sense of what is not understandable when you destroy the barrier of human experience. Through this articulation you receive the notions of “illusion” and “hologram”, these interpretations of an isolated wholly objective event turned into a subjective experience is a misunderstanding. The hologram does not exist, we don’t experience the hologram, the revelation of a hologram is not a revelation, it is a conceptualization of an isolated observation. This is the main reason why we cannot trust science to give us an absolute truth about reality, the absolute must exist within human experience and not outside the realm of comprehension.