> 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 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 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 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 receiving effects from the papers and seeing that
the effects are different and deducing back that therefore the papers
are 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 cause of self creating 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
certainty.

     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 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, cause
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 dream!"

     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
certainty.

     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.
 
     Homer