Hopefully. In my understanding, If we assume that there is an objective universe out there and that we know about that universe through some mechanism in our brain, then we do not really know anything.Is the universe in the brain? Do we really see the brain as it is? So, we have built a nice fiction that governs us.
OTOH, if awareness is the ontological primitive wherein space-time-objects appear, then the universe is true since consciousness is true.
...
Fiction is not some part of the world if it is the whole world. In a sense, the world is true because fiction is true.
The term "knowing" I take like so: all the world is believed (implying observed, ordered, and grasped), so shiny. Some of its (the world's) bits shine brighter, and so are attractive. The attractive quality "true" is attached to them, by means debatable, so they are what is "known." As "known" literally doesn't mean anything grander than shiny attractive bits, then yes, we do know things. We know the attractive fiction. We know the bits that are true, the bits that shine the brightest. Of these, some bits are given to be not of our making (objective), hence outside of our control (they are poofed off to become part of nature).
The brain is part of the very world for which it is given to be the instrument of observation. As a best-case scenario, a solid working theory, and a comfortable narrative, it is an attractive fiction. But the whole world is like that: there is no part that is not the attractive fiction. So using the attractive fiction to separate some parts of the world from the whole and declare them alone to be the fiction is the attractive fiction. That any parts of the grand picture are more or less the grand picture is the attractive fiction.
All the world is one bright pearl, consisting of the same attractive fiction, its bits riding on the surface of the same pearl that it proposes itself to be.