I hope the posts I have written helps someone think about things differently and to get a different picture of their world-view. If you are reading this post, please be aware of the previous posts which discuss aspects of this topic that help build up to this point in the discussion.
In this post, I will discuss different beliefs and ideas about truths. The reason why this is important is because everything one believes about their ideas, the world, etc. is based on beliefs. As much as people would like to think there are absolute truths, those truths are actually beliefs. It cannot be absolute truths because you cannot know everything when you are limited in the types of experiences you can have. No one has gone near a black hole. Most in our time have never even left our planetary space. The only experience that people talk about are human experiences, and so all "truths" are based on those limited experiences.
What makes someone believable to an individual while others are considered liars, quacks, misinformed, or just plain wrong? What makes one person's perspective clear and reasonable? Is it the evidence they provide? Is it their tone or delivery? How does one judge information for its "correctness" when you're mostly told the evidence as fact? You have no way of proving anything someone else says, unless you had the exact same personal experience.
In my perspective, people already have an opinion or viewpoint on a topic, and they seek out those with similar opinion or viewpoint. Some may have strong beliefs and those beliefs are validated by others, or they had a feeling or maybe doubt about something, and a book or speech or presentation provided that "Aha!" moment at the right time. In either case, it always starts with your own perspective. It doesn't have to be a strong belief in something. It can be a doubt about something that you may have pushed aside or denied for whatever reason. The point here is that when some information is brought into your awareness, it is for a reason but it is also your choice in how you respond to the information. This response alone, if you pay attention, can show you what your beliefs are.
When it comes to "truth", it is simply a tool to convince oneself of a belief. It can be any belief such as math or science or religion or even what you perceive. What one experiences in "life" is the only truth, which is that "life" is about experiences. Anything else is simply intellectualizing the experience. For example, Newton experienced the effect of "gravity", but he intellectualized the concept of "gravity" through that experience. The truth of the matter isn't the laws or mathematical proof of the law. It is the experience of observing behavior. No logical scientist tries to define human behavior in terms of mathematical laws, and yet it is accepted by many scientists that mathematical laws are absolute when it comes to material behaviors.
Why do people believe that this 3D experience is constant, and at the same time unstable? What I mean by unstable is that physicists believe the universe tends towards chaos (entropy or destruction). How can a system tend towards destruction and at the same time be constant, or more correctly, regenerative (hence the life/death cycle)? How can something by "law", must become broken, if it can become whole first (it must first be created, which is order)? This is because, the idea of entropy is incorrect. It is based on the belief that the universe is unconscious and dead. The universe is not moving towards destruction or chaos. It is merely behaving as all conscious things do: it is always changing. You may see destruction locally, but you will not see destruction as a whole. That is because the whole is itself stable and constant as far as existence goes. Many believe different ideas about the physical world because they convince themselves of their understanding through what they consider "proof".
What does it mean to have "proof"? If I show you 1+1 = 2, why does this analogy represent proof? It is because "proof" is simply another word for "logical". The existence of the idea that there must be a way to explain a subjective experience is because many focus on logic to explain or understand their experience. They do not consider their own intuitive understanding because it cannot be explained to another. This need to convince others is a type of ego, one that requires recognition and many times comfort from their fears. If one can convince the many of their idea, it creates a sense of satisfaction and comfort in knowing they were right and is among many others who believe the same thing.
This brings up the point that there is no such thing as "right". Or perhaps it's more correct to say that all individual perspectives are "right". Those who do not accept this is doing so based on the belief that there is only one right way to view everything in the world. This belief comes from the assumption that the universe is real (it is), external (it isn't), and independent from each individual perspective (it is and isn't). They believe that even without them being in the universe, the universe would still exist. The problem of seeing the universe from only their perspective makes this type of logical thinking seem correct. In a sense, this is true, but not because it is independent from them. Rather, it is because everything that exists is also a perspective. From each other perspective, they would also see the universe from their point of view, and thus it would exist. If there was nothing left in the universe to be a perspective, then there would no longer be a universe as nothing would perceive it. Which brings up my next point.
As much as we as humans like to think that we are the apex of creation, we are not so different than anything else in the universe. We are simply a larger bundle of bits of consciousness than a plant or a stone (consider that the human body is composed of base molecules organized into different organs). It isn't about the size of the object. It is about the configuration of conscious awareness. A rock or molecule is not consciously behaving like a human would. Likewise, the universe, with its uncountable number of galaxies, behave like a galaxy, containing, revolving, moving, using "forces" such as "gravity". Physics talks about fundamental forces of nature, but I call them the consciousness of the universe behaving (what we perceive) as the universe by converting energy, no different than a person who acts out their will. It is focused on the experience of being a rock or a molecule or a galaxy, thus, it can behave like a rock or molecule or galaxy. Without this focused consciousness, you would not see a rock since it wouldn't act like a rock. In other words, everything that you can see in this 3D world is due to the unseen consciousness manifesting and behaving as a 3D thing. This is how a concept becomes materialized in 3D. It is forming the symbol of the concept. This then implies that physical and spiritual are both the same thing in different forms. There is no need to "be spiritual" while physical since you must be both already.
This is also why rules can exist. Rules can only exist because something conscious defined them and follows them. A rule alone cannot be experienced unless something obeys the rule, which then makes the rule observable. Many scientists believe in mathematics as being absolute because it is repeatable and consistent. It is not seen as being "subjective" so it appears to be outside of individual influence to manipulate. However, math itself is a well-defined set of rules. Conceptually, it defines how rules behave using symbols including numbers, constants, variables, and operators. If math is also simply rules, then everything defined by mathematics is exemplifying consciousness underneath the observable surface. Everything being explored in 3D reality is merely the observable end result of unseen behaviors.
By "behavior", I'm referring to what can be observed as actions from making choices. "Living" things have behavior because the thing that appears "alive" is making choices. It may or may not be aware of these choices because it depends on which level of consciousness you are referring to. As I mentioned, all things in 3D has an underlying non-3D aspect. They are not 2 things, but rather 2 ways to describe the same thing. The non-3D consciousness is what does the acting. The 3D consciousness is what does the observing and experiencing. These 2 types of consciousness together create experience through behavior. It could be a rock, it could be a plant, it could be an animate creature including humans. As this applies to the small, it also applies to the large such as the galaxy which is the cumulative composition of all of the smaller bundles of consciousness. It doesn't even have to be physical (meaning a shape that is observable using physical senses). Where this confuses people is using their own sense of time to define behavior. Some behaviors span much larger amounts of time for change to be observed, but time as experienced in 3D is an illusion. It is dependent on the scale of experience.
A galaxy will span many billions of years, while a planet will experience much less number of years. Living creatures vary in the amount of years of experience, but in terms of observing change, it can be very short time periods. For example, we experience time as rapid successions of "moments". This can be observed as a smooth transition from one point in space to another. This slicing of time can be represented as slices of physical reality configurations (I described this as patterns of energy). When you experience time, you are experiencing transitioning between one slice of reality to another. But this observation of the movement of time is an aspect of the physical senses. Another sense that is not physical is the experience of change. Everything experiences change, and that is the true experience of time. It is not necessarily a linear experience. You can experience yourself as a young child through memory. You did not "go back in time" physically, but you did so experientially through your inner senses. That is how memory recall works, you are literally re-creating the moment non-physically of a given experience. This is also why memory recall can be inherently error prone. Because you are re-creating the moment from the physical perspective, and you may not be "remembering" it accurately.
Because we are experiencing linear time while in this physical reality, and our focus is limited (meaning we cannot absorb all the information occurring in a given moment), we are only able to understand our experience in 3D life in a specific way. We can only hold so much information at a given moment, and this varies with each individual, so we tend to forget certain important contextual information.
For example, many times people ask "why does evil exist?", forgetting that evil is a description of something opposite the subjective idea of good. Without one, the other would not exist. Another reason is that everything has a purpose in order to be able to experience some situation. If a situation requires evil in order to give a person the ability to make a choice in such a situation, then of course, evil must exist. It is the subjective preference, the assumption of isolation, and fear of the unknown that creates these judgment definitions. This is not to say the idea of evil is good, but that it is no different than good. They both exist because together they allow for certain kinds of experiences for the development of self-awareness and self-creation.
The real question shouldn't be why does this or that exist, but how does this or that help me be more of me? How can I become what I want to be in any given situation or experience? That is why linear time exists. It is to force you to make choices. If you could redo something at any time, then there would be no true experience due to the lack of consequence. It would be no different than being non-physical, already experiencing timeless simultaneousness. This is the difference between experiencing self-awareness in non-3D vs 3D.
Physical reality has rules defined in order to allow specific types of experiences to exist. Within this framework, we come into existence in order to experience what it is like. From the experiences, you change who you are. Why is it important to change who you are if you are already everything? Think about it this way. If there was no change, then the only possibilities available is what you have already experienced. You could not create new experiences without change. As "everything", in order to be "everything", you must experience BEING everything. And that requires change from one state to another, which is how "everything" can exist because change is creating every "thing". This change occurs because of experience. It cannot happen just by thought because you cannot know what you do not know. As much as the One Creator is "everything", it will always be changing because that is what it means to be alive. To be dead is to be static and unchanging.
How you experience life and how you define yourself in life is dependent on the beliefs you live by, and how you choose to respond to your life experiences based on those beliefs. You live in a reality of fixed time intervals, which slows down the experience so that you can absorb the changes and reflect on those changes to decide your next set of choices. Life in this reality is all about choices because it is the purpose for having free-will, which leads to change. Many may argue that free-will is an illusion, but that is because they define reality from the surface layer of observation. Behind it all, there is a flow of consciousness that allows for reality to exist and thus there is a reason for its existence. From the one side of the surface, you are living an isolated and limited life. That life will alter and change the entire universe, even if you do not see your part in it. But from the other side of the surface, you see the whole picture and your part in it. The question is, can you see the same big picture while living in limitation or can you only see the surface and react to the experiences in life without consciously using your free-will?