We are talking about the different metaphysical "levels" of truth. Here.
At the highest level, I see "tokens" proposed by Parmenides. They're like ideas, except more fundamental. They're the building blocks of ideas. Very primitive and fundamental. I could do a math analogy and say that a Parmenides' token is something like "Pi", an "idea" that is so fundamental, it is a lynchpin for the existence of other ideas. But really, it might go deeper than that. Like, pieces of immutable, indivisible information, from which all other information derives its properties.
You are talking about truth in a closer association with the notion of "fact". This definition of "truth" is circumstantial in that it can or can not be truth depending on the existence of an external object. (A contradition to the truth). Not "fundamental" enough for my tastes.
Me, I'm trying to introduce a notion of truth that's not entirely metaphysical, and can exist in a practical context, yet mimics the property of being entirely self-contained and immutable. "Truth" as in something that does not change its nature depending on what is introduced into the system. It does not interact with anything (for interaction requires mutability on part of the interacted), it does not change, can not be further decomposed. That is my notion of truth that is one level of abstraction (or "divinity" if you will) than platonic ideals, and yet can be formulated and utilized in a lower level, "mundane" context.
>things can always get better, but things can always get worse, too. like, when you're on position (-9000) on the real number line you can move to position 0 and continue to eventually reach 9000 or you can go to (-∞), (-∞)-1 and so on.
No, I don't think introducing the negative numbers is necessary here. I don't think there's an infinite depth to "acting like an animal", if you define that as "acing in a way that maximizes individual fitness regardless of anything". There's only one "perfect" point at which a function can be perfectly optimal for its environment, and we can just call that "0". Optimization is not a +- scale, it is a point you are trying to reach. Just like in computer programming or engineering in general, there's exactly one, fragile, most optimal state you want to be in, rather than having an infinite space to optimize towards.
>i think this statement might not be trivial to prove :)
I can't prove it, but I'll just fall le good old entropy and Marxist analysis of economy/science. Things naturally trend towards min/maxing. minimizing effort for maximizing profit/benefit. Because every other strategy is less efficient at self-perpetuating.
I can even provide examples. In that, life forms that merely maximize self-perpetuation are far more likely to survive through many scenarios, including mass extinction scenarios, than complicated organisms. If some freak space ray hits the earth and scorches the planet and destroys the ecosystem, it won't be the advanced humans surviving, it will be the primitive bacterial. And that's not a good thing.
I think our job as the only self-directed species is to consciously decide our path of development, rather than becoming subservient to entropy, like how capitalists love to do (duh its natural, it's just the law, muh social darwinism). We must become the masters of our fates and DEFY natural law, rather than try to utilize it.