What is referred to as direct evidence❓
Evidence through sensory observation, whether by induction, deduction, scientific methods, or any method, always leads to evidence from cause and effect observations.
Sensory observations always focus on the observation of cause-and-effect relationships.
We see the cause-and-effect relationship in four possible chain of events calculated in distance from the Absolute Cause
1⃣ "ONE-TO-TWO"
👉 Three links in the chain
"Subject/Object"<->
"Intermediate"<->
"Subject/Object"
2⃣ "ONE-TO-THREE"
👉 Four links in the chain
"Subject/Object"<->
"Two Intermediates"<->
"Subject/Object"
3⃣ "ONE-TO-MANY"
👉 Many links in the chain
"Subject/Object"<->
"Many Intermediates"<->
"Subject/Object”
📌 In three or more links in the chain. The one sensing and the sensed, plus one (or more) additional "intermediate" between the sensing and the sensed.
4⃣ "ONE-TO-ONE"
ONLY HIS WILL EXISTS
📌 The one sensing disappears, only the Absolute Cause exists, only His will
Boundaries of Reality
Point 3⃣ represents the reality between cause and effect, why❓ Because there is relativity there.
Relativity operates within limits. It’s impossible for something to be as free as it surpasses itself to become previously,
Once something is caused, it has a beginning. And once something has a beginning, it is impossible for it to be previously. SIMPLY PUT, the effect will never become the cause before it. MEANING, ITS EFFECT IS LIMITED BECAUSE IT IS CONSTRAINED BY THE CAUSE THAT CAUSED IT.
Flexibility of Cause and Effect
This also means that the relative can be so flexible because it always moves within the possibility of cause and effect. And the condition of cause and effect is clearly limited because it is confined within the range of its cause.
✅ It means the flexibility is relative because it relies on cause and effect.
📌 The flexibility of life's conditions makes us observe its patterns. What does that mean❓
Probabilities
Yes, because not all events are as easily patterned. We need to observe their probabilities, as a result of the variations in cause-and-effect relationships.
The condition of these probabilities confirms the chain of cause and effect "one-to-many," where "we" as the subject ("one") can never directly observe “the first one”, so our perception always has an intermediary (barrier) between us and what we observe - a "many-chain."
We cannot directly perceive the source. And this intermediary varies as a diversity that reveals probabilities.
Example: if I shake hands with you directly, you touch me directly, so the situation is closer, and of course, you understand my situation, eliminating the probabilities.
Probability Distance -- Chain of Cause and Effect
In reality, we face probabilities, that's why the relationship is not "one-to-one" but "one-to-many." There is always a distance between us and the object we observe.
Even when shaking hands, it's not "one-to-one" (directly), but "one-to-many" (because there are many intermediaries in the cause-and-effect - more in a quantum physics sense) - there is a distance between us and what we touch.
SO, IS THERE DIRECT EVIDENCE❓
🔰 Is there direct evidence of "one-to-one"❓❌ No ✅
🔰 So the closest distance possible for us is only as far as "one-to-many"
SO (IN A SCIENTIFIC - SCHOLARLY, EMPIRICAL... etc., MANNER), ARE YOU ASKING FOR DIRECT EVIDENCE OF HOW CLOSE❓
HOW CLOSE❓
We will explore from the perspectives of metaphysics and science. Understanding proximity as "one-to-one," "one-to-two," "one-to-three," "one-to-four," and so on can be narrowed down to two fundamental concepts:
- 1⃣ "One-to-One"
- 2⃣ "One-to-Many"
Fundamentally asserted as "non-distance" (point 1⃣) & "distance" (point 2⃣).
ONE-TO-MANY
So, as long as there is a distance between us and others, there exists a cause-and-effect relationship with varying degrees, emphasizing the presence of distance.
If mapped like this...
🎯 --- effect (relative cause) --- 🎯
- 👉 As close as two things may be, if there is distance, there is an "effect" between them (also called a relative cause because it is an effect of a preceding cause, a relative cause that is not an Unoriginated Cause).
NON-DISTANCE
📌 Two distant things mean they are separate, so non-distance means unity (indivisible).
Distinguish the metaphor "we unite despite there being distance (physical)" where their individuality remains distant from all sides.
When "one-to-many" or at least "one-to-two"
🎯 --- effect (relative cause) --- 🎯
... they are not truly united.
And when "one-to-one" occurs, there is no distance, so only one possibility exists:
〰 Two different things in one position - contradiction
- 👉 Don't be deceived by sensory perception of two adjacent/touching/reacting things; they are still actually distant.
〰 If there is interaction, there is still distance between interacting entities, meaning they are separate.
❇️ Non-distancing between two things implies the unity of two things. The unity of two things is a contradiction, so one is possible, the other is impossible.
✅ Thus, at the closest point, there is always still distance.
SCIENTIFIC PROXIMITY
When something is distant, interaction is possible, but if they are not distant, it's a contradiction, and one of them must change.
Scientifically, such non-distant but seemingly distant events can be observed in collision processes. Forcing proximity between particles almost to non-distance can lead to the destruction of one (some may split).
- Contradiction is merely a mental reminder; there's a perception error (not destruction).
- Because there's no real contradiction. The concept of contradiction is a change of one of two conditions that cannot coexist (without truly ceasing to exist).
- Absolutely, it’s not destruction but a change in one, giving the impression of a contradictory process where one must cease. In reality, it’s not destruction but one of them losing its original attributes (as if disappearing).
OBJECTIVITY
The question❓THEN...
The closest doesn't prove anything except transforming one thing into another; thus, we never truly understand the entirety of something except as always being distant.
Not about direct evidence anymore❓But how close is your evidence to the actual state❓
Probabilistic Consistency & Universal Consistency
✅ MORE FUNDAMENTALLY, HOW CLOSE CAN OUR ARGUMENT GO BEYOND CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS, making it more objective❓
- 〰 So the more objective, the higher the probability of the evidence.
📌 Consistency can go beyond when the argument surpasses cause-and-effect, not just probabilistic consistency but universal consistency.
🔰 How to go beyond cause and effect❓ BY EXAMINING THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES BEHIND CAUSE AND EFFECT. THAT IS THE CLOSEST EVIDENCE - ALTHOUGH NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE.
🔰 SO, DO YOU WANT DIRECT EVIDENCE WITHOUT COLLISIONS & WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS❓❌
