I like your formula P E(S, Os, Cs, Es) = T. If we let S = “Earth is flat”, Os = “surface dweller”, Cs = “strong religious beliefs”, and Es = “resolving cognitive dissonance”, it definitely equals True. Still, good luck to come to an agreement in a handshake like manner. But all jokes aside, I guess the most apt description of what science really does, is your quote of Bohr, “In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of the phenomena but only to track down, as far as possible, relations between the manifold aspects of our experience.”

Even if this world of phenomena is far from being as rigid as it appears to the naked untrained eye (one could even say that it’s really just a dream), the “causal streams” that shape it seem to have a certain (let’s say) objective structure (e.g. there’s yet to be a person who was born and didn’t went through what we call death, or how much energy and what circumstances would one need to reverse the process? — seems as pretty absolute fact). So, I don’t think that truth can be labeled as relative perception. Undoubtedly, things may appear real for an observer under certain circumstances, but as you say “thinking is just abstraction of the authentic world”.