> Is it basically the same as the observation that the only thing we can
> really observe is a correlation of events, not one event causing another?

     Yes this is the underlying principle.

     Adore defines 3 states.

     Followingness which means B follows A once in a while.
     Dependable followingness which means B follows A all the time.
     Necessary dependable followingness, which means B MUST follow A
all the time, not just in our observations, but through the entire
universe whether observed or not.

     Cause implies necessary dependable followingness.
     Since correlation alone does not imply causation, one needs to ask,
"What then implies causation?"
     Causation is an anthropomorphism of our own experience of self
agency, projected into the alleged external physical universe.  We know
we cause things, so we believe other things cause things too.

     Since science can only observe correlations, science can never
prove causation.  It can *ASSUME* there is causation where there is
observable dependable followingness, but the third party law forbids
concluding with perfect certainty that causation exists.
     The third party law says, if B follows A dependably, then maybe A
causes B or maybe C causes both A and B in such a way that it looks like
A causes B.
     The third party law prohibits deriving any certainty of cause
between any two events that follow each other merely from observations
that they follow each other.
     Throw a ball against a wall and watch it bounce.
     Why does it bounce?  Because the wall causes the ball to bounce?
Electric fields between atomic shells etc?
     Do this in a dream.  Why does the ball bounce?  Do atoms in dream
walls have electronic force to repel each other?  Of course not, there
are no walls or balls in the dream, just pictures of such.  Yet the ball
bounces as if the wall were actual.

     The usual meatball explanation is because the sleeping brain makes
it look like the wall is causing the ball to bounce, even though there
is no actual wall and no ball.  In the dream the ball could just as
easily go through the wall.
     Extend it a bit further, there is no wall nor ball even during the
waking state, just dream images of such.  The third party is Source, an
inner cause, not an external cause of wall and ball.

     Source projects virtual kinetics.

     Source projects a virtual external reality of ball and wall.
     Meatballs believe in the actual existence of the projected virtual
reality, they consider it an ACTUALITY rather than a virtual reality,
they have succumbed to "corruption, temptation and seduction to delusion
about illusion."

     The apparency of external causes is the illusion.  Their belief
that external cause is actual is delusion.  That is why they claim
clearing people are deluded all the time, they are the ones who are
deluded, big time.
     > Or, in yet another words, the only cause we can be absolutely
certain of is our own.

     Yes, however the proof says there are two causes we can be certain
of.  Each is very different from each other and in opposite directions,
one outflow and one inflow, between self and conscious picture.

     The first cause is the cause of self agency, for example when a
conscious unit wishes to create, change or destroy a mockup.

     This cause is an outflow from self to conscious picture.
     Mockup an arm, move it, Who is doing it?  How do you know?  Are you
sure?  100 perfect sure?  Would you bet your eternity in hell you are
right?  etc.
     The second cause is the cause of perception of the mockup you just
created.  This allows us to 'check out' that what actually got created
is what we intended to create.

     This cause is an inflow from conscious picture back to self.

     Take a red piece of paper and put it next to a green piece of paper
in front of you.

     Pretend these are dream papers, no real paper there, just conscious
pictures.  We aren't talking about *PAPER*, we are talking about
colorform conscious pictures of paper like in a dream.

     Look at them.  Are they different colors?  Are you sure?  How do
you know?  Are you being an effect of the color's cause over you, and
seeing that the effects in yourself are different and thus deducing back
that therefore the colors are probably different colors?
     Or do you SEE two different colors?  Can you see the cause in the
color that makes you see and know they are different?  This cause is not
the same cause of self that created the mockups, this is the cause in
the mockups causing self to know it is there and what it is.

     So there is the outgoing cause of self creating the mockup.
     And there is the incoming cause of the mockup causing the self to
perceive it.
     The first allows the self to create and know it is creating.
     The second allows the self to check out that what it intended to
created (the mockup) actually got created as it intended it.

     The two flows of course work in tandem, but it is important to
separate them out, because self agency is not the same as perceptual

     A machine can't do this, in particular it can't check what it
creates with certainty, because it can only be the effect of what it
creates and deduce backwards from the effects it receives that the
effects look theoretically right from the alleged cause.

> For example, we observe that rats who eat less lose weight. Do they lose
> weight because they eat less? or do they eat less because they need less
> food to sustain their smaller body mass? or the change of diet and the
> change in weight are caused by a third source? 

     Yes, precisely, there is no way to prove that God is not
intervening arbitrarily.  One can assume that he isn't, and then
proceed, but its not proof or perfect certainty.

     Meatballs can't handle the subject of perfect certainty, because
they know they can't have any in the model of learning they are used to,
learning by looking at effects.  They will say "I am certain I can't be
certain of anything" and the non sequitur appears to them as wisdom.

     They know they can't be certain others exist, so they figure they
can't be certain of themselves either, so they say "Let's just assume
everyone exists and not be rude, but maybe I am somebody else's
hallucination!  Prove I am not!"

     Running "Do you doubt that you doubt?" on them for a while tends to
produce a blown pc or a very sheepish grin.
     They eventually say "Ok, Ok already, maybe I do exist, but how do I
know you do?"

     That's uptone from where they were.

     You know Jane comes up to me all the time, looks me in the eyes,
tickles my mid rift, and says "Hey Homie, you there?  Is there really
anyone there between your eyes looking back at me?" And I say "Yep I am
here!" and she goes "Yeah yeah, that's what they all say!" before she
jumps on me.

     I have had people come up to me in dreams do the exact same thing,
they grab me by the arm, *REALLY HARD*, look *RIGHT* into my eyes, and
say "Are you just my dream or are you a real being?" I say back to them,
"I am really here looking back at you!" and they say "Prove it!" and I
say "I can't you asswipe and you know it, now get the hell out of my

     The more certain people become of their own existence the more
uncertain they become of others, until perhaps they start to contact
others *THROUGH* their own self rather than externally where they don't
exist anyhow.

     There ain't no one out there, there aint *NOTHING* out there.

     The universe is a hologram of space time painted on a brick wall
with nothing behind it.

    >The only way to tell is to
> vary rat's ration and see what happens, that is bring in our own free will,
> consequently if there's no free will, there's no way to establish
> cause-effect relationships. (I believe Stephen Hawking had an essay about
> that)

     I would say that even with entering our free will into it, one
still can't prove cause.  One can only show observably dependable
correlation.  This is *USEFUL* to the degree that one trusts it to
continue, and one can devise cute dream theories to explain it, that
then lead to predictions that pan out, but this is not perfect

     The virtual projector can project any dream theory you devise,
the game then is to forget the theory and seek it out again by making
observations.  Maybe the universe goes "Bing!  You Won!" when you get
the one that was being projected.

     Then you can unmock the whole thing and start again with a new
theory to devise, project, not know and play hide and seek with.

> Is that what you are talking about or am i am going in a completely wrong
> direction here?

     Looks to me like you got it dead center.