ok, if you say so, so be it....
but i think you're saying the same thing as i said..
just a matter of semantics...
See, thats understandable. In a way you are correct but in a way I am also correct. The sematics comes with your definition of truth and reality.
I see reality as something that is and can't be changed by idealisms or attitude or understanding.
I see truth as something that flexes according to assessments.
When you see someone that is deluded, you know they are deluded (not implying anything).
That delusion to them is their reality. If you witness this, it is understandable that one could think that reality is mutable. You know their reality is not true (the truth). Your brain associates truth as reality because that is how you understand the meanings of those words from your observations. His reality is not the truth so reality can't be the same definition as truth. Its a word association thing that gets in the way.
Reality is defined as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Reality exists whether people exist or not.
Reality exists whether it is assessed, agreed or accepted.
Reality requires no proof, it just is.
Truth only exists if people exist.
Truth is:
the quality or state of being true. - an assessment
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. - an agreement
a fact or belief that is accepted as true. - an acceptance
All which is dependant on humans to assess, agree or accept
Truth requires proof.