All truths are true?

[Lavazza]

It seems that we may be confusing knowledge, beliefs, and truths. [...]
So Lavazza, what I think you are seeing as truth is instead a set of knowledge that you gained based upon a consensus experience of how to view the world that you developed over many incarnations and also inherited from the general consensus of those that have lived here before. I think that this also gets at the root, if you will, of your question on another thread about non-understanding, because it is impossible to understand the Law of One, which is a fundamental and foundational TRUTH, from within 3D where all we actually have is consensus KNOWLEDGE which is built upon the house of cards of our singular and collective experiences.

Hey 3D, great to see you here again!

Yes, it's entirely possible that I am confused on the point of truth vs. knowledge and also perhaps beliefs. Maybe a better heading for this thread would have been "All beliefs are true?". For this is primarily what has caused my to become confused about the idea. I really like how you have laid out the three levels of understanding... Beliefs first (conjectures about the way it is), knowledge second (observations about the way it is) and finally truth (actual knowing / experiencing / being the way it is). This framework helps a lot! From this I would suggest that yes, all truths must be true because there is no way a truth could become one without being one already. This also at the same time makes more sense out of the flat-earth vs. round-earth belief systems and that although groups of entities may be completely convinced of something, it may not in actuality be that way.

I would suggest that maybe the shared reality as an external "object" is not how I would look at it. I would consider shared reality that part of our perspective that is synchronized to the point where it makes sense to us to communicate to each other how to deal with it. There is no central object, but our synchronisation and creation seems as if there is precisely such an object.

No doubt you know the story about the blind folded philosophers and the elephant. Just like to each of them the elephant is a different thing. To each of us shared reality or our perspective on it is a different thing. We call it shared because it is conceptually the same. Our logic can argue about it and when we communicate the logic it fits from multiple perspectives. This is what it means, nothing more.

You've summarized shared reality very well! And yes- I always loved the story about the elephant and the blind men. It's a great reflection to us about how much we actually know about all there is.

How would you know the earth was a sphere or even that she is? From our perspective it could be a sphere. Meaning that if we take our perspective millions of years into the past it would to our perspective still be a sphere. But our perspective did not exist then. So how can you be certain it was actually a sphere?

It's a sphere to you now. But do you think it's a sphere to a cow now? To a cow it would be a huge curvy plane and if the cow walks long enough in one direction he ends up at the same spot on the plane. Two realities, both true. Both not the same, and both not contradictory. A rock would perceive the earth as a field, time flows differently for it. It shares our reality and does not contradict.

I understand where you're going with this idea, but I do have to say that I think it underscores 3D Sunset's point about our mixing terminology quite well. The cow's reality may not include the idea of a spherical Earth, or anything past the horizon for that matter and yet although she is unaware of anything else, else still exists in a factual sense. Much in the same way as our physical space-time universe geometry might be flat, curved in to a sphere, torus or some other complex shape and we cannot perceive it. So the cow's beliefs and knowledge support that the universe is the field she is grazing in, although her beliefs and knowledge is limited.

I honestly don't think you exist in one universe at a time. You think so, your mind tells you this is so. But you're a multidimensional entity in truth.

I have little doubt my friend. I've been purposely steering the conversation away from multiple dimensions simply because for the most part I have heard the theory of all truths being true from people in the context of our shared reality (or uni-verse). On topics from moon bases to how the coming havest will go down. Now that I'm seeing that it really can't work with one reality (or so I speculate at this point) I am open to looking at how it fits in with many. But I think you've already done a good job of doing that.

A question that comes to my mind is: Do you feel the multiple universes in a multiverse are like single universes separated from each other? Because the thing about parallel universes is well, that they're not exactly parallel. Parallel implies geometrical orientation. They're also not strictly universes in that they're not separated (not uni) and not all(versal). Each universe is another way of viewing the same singularity. A perspective. A change in one universe will change every other universe.

Incidentally, since February it seems everyone started asking this question.

I actually don't have much information on how multiple verses work although I have heard some theories. Do you have any good links you could point me to? (hopefully audio or video links so I can listen while I'm at work- not as much time to actually read things). Who else has been thinking about this since Feb? It wouldn't surprise me, I think we're collectively thinking more on common lines at this forum as time goes on. SMC pre-school if you will.

Great thoughts, everyone!