Does knowing cause the effect??

cause and effect isn’t causality until you believe in cause and effect.

Does this mean cause and effect is nothing but resembles the analogy of ‘chicken and egg??’ – No. Well, it’s not for the very fundamental reason that chicken and egg are ‘interrelated’ and the colloquial aspect is about looking into the past. So, to look for origins or evolution or emerging roots.

chicken and egg… looking at the current ‘result’ and tracing back to its ‘origin’.

When it comes to cause and effect, it’s about ‘sequential’ and implies ‘linear progression’ where among the many respectable events, some events or its outcomes further influence the future, as well as the past.

cause and effect… looking at the current ‘cause’ and imaging the future effect.? (or)? looking at the current ‘effect’ and figuring the past ‘cause’.

Doings of?now

Cause and effect that spans time linking past events to consequences and future implications.

The doings of now as an efficiency measure, manage, maintain, action reflects into the near future or far away thus, but surely finite future. So the question and context strides to effectiveness whilst the state of affairs is still in the current. Now the quest to causality isn’t believable unless it happens or is known imminent.

The belief system needs accurately constructed layered with conscious. That, knowing the facts, relations among the facts, depths of considerations to the facts, figuring truth to the facts - as well as, oh! it gets better now - knowing the future contextual effects that are significantly in a different dimension within a completely disjoint universe or?domain.

Most, it’d stand as though, efficiency domain and effective domains are disjoint and are completely oblivious to those dealing with each of these two domains. What it means, those personas who care for efficiency measures (to know and to keep track on what’s happening now) and those who bother about effective measures (to realise the outcomes as facts) are often, if not all the time, are quite oblivious to each others’ domains.

The foundation of causality is to make sure the two domains are mapped, related, retained traces, related bidirectional for communication, coexistence of forecasting and backcasting.

The effective domain deals with Quality whereas efficiency domains deal with Quantity.

What that means, you’d need a conversion function. It’s logical. However the conversion into quality from either quantity or quality needs a mathematical treatment. Particularly, for the very fact that you’d need to know how the quantity measures are different to quality measures and by how much. There may be an under-or-over to how-it’d-look-like in the future or relating to the past?—?‘what-if’.

betting – i.e., Effect Distribution

For anything that relates to future (the state that didn’t happen yet), the safe play, has always been, was to map the efficiency domain into the effectiveness domain, in a distribution rather than betting on the precision and accuracy.

Remember that even if the causality results into the effect, perceived or real, the effectiveness measure may not have existed at the time of causation cycle (occurs in the past to effect).

So, this unknown unknown state of affairs to the effectiveness domain needs a receiver, receptor, accountable human in the loop.

Betting on accuracy is effective when the bidirectional cause and effect relationship is believable. Maths is the way to create this believable bridge.

Many constructs will construct the constructed bridge?: Of course, ontology, knowledge graphs, topology, quantity to quality conversion, referential history, statistics to reveal the patterns, dimensionality reduction, clustering, increasing dimensions, classification.

“When you need to cluster – reduce dimensions, When you need to classify – increase dimension.” – author?unknown.

Automation to the?rescue

Based on the known cognitive load of dealing with cause and effect, automation is fundamental to be efficient and effective – for when it reaches the magnitudes of effectiveness – that is efficacy.

When you, by hook or crook or just sheer Maths, hit the significant part of the distribution – in other words, the range factor is so high in accuracy, trustworthy, believable, high precision – so much that you consider the effect is successful and measurable – you may declare you’ve achieved – efficacy.? /well the pun fact, until someone volunteers to humble the thought/

For example, say you prepared well and more than necessary – efficient. Though, it may be sufficient to get anywhere between 96.5 – 98.5 out of 100 to be selected for an admission into a course – effective. But what if you strive for efficacy and achieve 98.5 anyway, only to be told that there were 5 others in that range but you were the first one to reach fastest to 98.5 within the time-limit of the course entrance examination.

"being creative is by thoughts of Imagination, not just any thoughts"

Read this book, that i never read, A century isn’t enough

At the same time, another example where you get only 6 runs for a ball that was hit out of the cricket ground, so why bother efficacy and just focus on effectiveness by still being as much efficient as possible.

So perhaps, “knowing causes the effect?!”

“perspectives effect perceptions”?—?Epistemic Observability