This quote profoundly challenges the way we perceive truth, especially in abstract disciplines like geometry. The comparison drawn between different geometrical systems and measurement units reveals that truth, in such contexts, isn't an absolute or singular entity. Instead, it can be understood as a form of convenience or utility. Euclidean and Riemannian geometries, which represent fundamentally different ways of understanding space, are not competing truths but parallel frameworks designed for different purposes. This perspective invites us to question rigid dichotomies that pit one belief, system, or method as 'true' and others as 'false.' It suggests a more pragmatic approach where the value of an idea or system lies in its applicability and usefulness rather than in an intrinsic, immutable truth.

Moreover, this philosophy has broader implications outside mathematics and science. In life, in philosophy, and in culture, multiple truths can coexist, each relative to context and utility. It asks us to embrace multiplicity and resist dogmatism, acknowledging that our perspectives are tools rather than absolute gospel. This approach encourages flexibility, adaptability, and open-mindedness—traits essential in a complex and ever-changing world. In sum, the quote is a meditation on the nature of knowledge, challenging us to rethink our attachment to singular truths and recognize the power of practicality and advantage in shaping what we endorse as true.