“You didn’t wake up in the world. You woke up in a version that tolerated your expectations.”

We often assume there is one reality — singular, sovereign, objective. But what if reality is more like a negotiated truce between perceptual shortcuts, cognitive priors, and cultural scripts? What if “truth” is not supreme, but plural — and coherence is the only practical currency we have?

This post draws from my book Plural Reality Principle (link below), where I argue that:

• Reality is not absolute but modular — built from perception frameworks that work.
• Objective reality is an emergent consensus, not a metaphysical given.
• Epistemic pluralism is not relativism. It’s survival logic for post-truth cognition.
• Logical consistency can be engineered across incompatible ontologies.

Instead of asking "What is real?" — we might better ask "What is stable enough to navigate?" The future belongs not to those with the truest map, but to those who can shift maps without losing coherence.

📖 Full book: Plural Reality Principle – Kindle Edition

Would love feedback or challenges from this community. Especially from those exploring epistemology, map/territory distinctions, or frameworks like multi-agent rationality.

🌀
— Shunya (Dr. Mohammad Amir Khusru Akhtar)