A part of your post reminded me the paradox of beauty in Zhuangzi (see reference):

Mao Qiang and Li Ji
were accounted by men to be most beautiful, but when fishes saw them, they dived deep in
the water from them; when birds, they flew from them aloft; and when deer saw them, they
separated and fled away. But did any of these four know which in the world is the right
female attraction?

Beauty is only relevant depending on your referential, and I would interpret truth the same. What is considered to be true is true in some referential. E.g.: I see the colors as I do given a typical human being who can see red, green, blue and all derived colors. But someone with color vision deficiency would probably disagree with me. Give me two or three dimensions, I can represent it. Now give me four dimensions and my cognitive limitations make it hard for me to represent it even though in math it is perfectly fine.

So with respect to some referential, I think we can all agree to some truth, which we may find false in some distant future. I think truth exists, and we can consider it absolute given a referential.
Actually everything in science is true until proven otherwise, and changes of paradigm always take time to get accepted. What makes something reasonably true at some point is that it can be falsified and tested. Given that, it seems fine to me to consider something absolutely true given nothing else falsifies what I believe to be true.

I digress a bit but recently I was reading a book written by John McMoneagle who was using "remote viewing" for US agencies. He was discussing in his book about our perception of time with past, present and future. For him, although he can't explain it precisely, what we think about time is more complex. I find it fascinating that even basic concepts such as time, that in math we typically represent as a single dimension and take it as granted, might actually be multidimensional or completely different than we think today.