True But Meaningless, Then Bad, Then Gone
One can easily dwell upon the following and derive many side-trains, so let us be on a straight track.
We usually think of “true but stupid” as: trivial, truism, not-useful, empty. Examples:
“One of the divisors of seventeen is unity.” (Trivial)
“Condensed milk contains milk as its main ingredient.” (Truism)
While we are talking about your uncle’s ill-health, I say: “There is a mouse on the table.” (Not-useful)
This sentence contains no information. (Empty) 
I just realised that there is a much more profound category: true but meaningless. Here are examples, assuming there is only a mouse and a monitor on your table:
“There is no apple on the table.”
“There is no heavy metallic object on the table.”
“In the past five minutes, I spoke exactly zero times about your aunt’s uncle.”
Etc.
“Meaning” refers to the mapping of the unknown to the known. It is true that there is no apple on the table, so let’s ask: why is the statement without meaning?
I can explain this in terms of “truism” and the other things as above (those are the intermediate nonsenses). This statement is without meaning because it is a truism *and* it is known. In words, we have: The fact of no apple is a “known truism.” Also, there is nothing beyond in principle. (There are, doubtless, higher nonsenses, but they can be derived the same way.)
Hence: You carry an infinite number of facts — one for each of the (known) objects that are not on the table.
Now, back to our question: Why is it meaningless to say “there is no apple,” while it seems meaningful to say “there is a mouse, but no keyboard”?
All the following are true:
1. This mouse is made of titanium.
(You were not aware of it, so this is called information.)
2. The mouse is on the table.
(You were already aware of it, so this is called truism, obviousness, etc.)
3. “No keyboard is on the table,” OR “The keyboard is not on the table.”
(You were aware of it, so it includes truism and obviousness, but it is considered more meaningful than #2 above because I am pointing you to something you only latently know.)
4. No apple is on the table. (You knew it. It is a “known truism.” You possess an infinity of such latent truths. The thing here is: Unlike in the case of the keyboard, I am personally creating the apple in your thoughts and then negating it. You say “yes, it is true” even though it was not in your thoughts — whereas when we usually say “X is true,” we are referring to something that is indeed in our thoughts.
The catch, as I see it, is that I am creating a truth when I make the statement. Sure, it is a known truism, and therefore not only useless but also meaningless, but I actually created it.
It seems to me that the truths we can create would have to be of this kind. Here are examples of such truths in real life:
“You will not be able to resist the thought of ‘a red apple’ in the next one minute.” (Try it, and you will see that it is true. Then see this: it is true because I said that sentence.) This, extended to actions, translates to Temptation.
“Watch this scene and you’ll never feel like having apple pie again!” (Some even respond with “Yes, I’m sure! I won’t watch the scene!” — This we see in the phenomenon of movie spoilers.
“Walk wherever you want, but never, ever enter that area. It’s creepy. Don’t ask me why.”
This creates Ghosts.
“You think coffee and cheese are harmless? Just try three cups of coffee followed by six ounces of cheese, then have two more coffees after a two-minute break. I’ll do anything you say if you stay alive.”
This creates Fear.
On and on one can go, and the ultimate, of course, is:
“There will be a time when you do not exist.”
This creates the concept of Death.
In sum:
1. If someone says Falseness cannot come from Truth, he is wrong
2. By combining various human elements with The Act of Negation, many powerful — and at the same time ephemeral – humanly negative things can be created, all of which have the exact authority of truth. Learning to recognise The Act of Negation has immense therapeutic value, I’m sure.