You actually expect intellectual respect when you make your stand on the issue that there is no logical difference between "truth" and "illusion"? That "truth" is a perceptual term and that what is "true" for one might not be "true" another? I would sure love to know your deep intellectual philosopher's definition of "truth"!
I think that most people believe that "truth" means something universal and your absolute position that it doesn't is actually quite ludicrous. I use only one quality of truth in my deductions and I believe that quality is inherent in almost everyone's definition of truth. (You of course being an exception along with the other nuts in the nuthouse.) The quality I use is very simple: what is true is independent of one's belief. If it's true, it's true and it doesn't make any difference if you believe it or not.
The heart of the matter is that you simply can not accept the fact that anything can be logically deduced from that characteristic itself; it is not possible so you will not look! Definitely the sign of an intellectual genius!
I hold that, if my deductions are true, they are true and it doesn't make any difference whether you believe it or not. If they are false, then someone will point out the actual flaw. And as an aside to the rest of you, Yanniru is to physics what Harv is to philosophy so don't depend on authority, think things out for yourself.
Have fun -- Dick
PS I am glad we don't burn people at the stake any more; if we did, I think Harv would be "Johnny on the spot" with the matches!