Why jump through hoops to defend determinism?

[visheshdewan050193]

When people try to point out 'random' events that aren't supposedly covered by notions of causality, why jump through hoops claiming that it's imperfect modelling or mapping of previous causes that gives rise to the seeming randomness of the event or effect in question? If a cause is defined as a condition on which an effect's existence is contingent, logical reasoning alone is sufficient to establish that a finite observed thing must be caused.

I've seen the inaccurate/incomplete modelling argument offered almost as an apology before in other threads on this forum. Why demote the philosophical conception of causality to the more intuitive strand of temporal causality (which is of specific empirical interest?) There could be compelling arguments made (such as in complexity theory that's evoked for stuff like the blackhole firewall paradox) that might state it to be impossible to map all information about prior causes (forget about measuring inaccuracies of that information that throws off a model's predictability).

I don't know if it's ever been admitted on the forum that accurate modelling and foolproof 'predictability' of events (that seems to be implied by determinism) might just be fundamentally unattainable, and that's fine because it doesn't disprove A=A. Perhaps one could treat any statements regarding ultimate predictability as a piece of empirical knowledge (built upon a set of axioms), therefore uncertain, and therefore not warranting any real philosophic interest?

[jupiviv]

When people try to point out 'random' events that aren't supposedly covered by notions of causality, why jump through hoops claiming that it's imperfect modelling or mapping of previous causes that gives rise to the seeming randomness of the event or effect in question?

I wouldn't call that jumping through hoops. All empirical data is physically constrained, relative, tentative and defined according to convention. It isn't supposed to "prove" the whole of cause and effect because it derives from specific causes/effects by definition.

Even logic doesn't prove causality. If X and Y cause each other because they are not each other, then both X and Y also cause themselves by not being each other. So you must presuppose causality no matter what you decide to think about.

[visheshdewan050193]

Even logic doesn't prove causality. If X and Y cause each other because they are not each other, then both X and Y also cause themselves by not being each other. So you must presuppose causality no matter what you decide to think about.

That's a bit of specious reasoning. logic and causality are both basically predicted on the identity principle, A=A, which is pretty much an intuitively accepted axiom. The intuitive bit being - If a bounded entity A is A and not not-A, it can only exist in relation to not A.

Everything that is not A is a cause of A, therefore A cannot be a cause of A.
You could say A=A is a logical proof of causality, but I dunno if it makes sense to say that one needs to 'prove' A=A.

[jupiviv]

Even logic doesn't prove causality. If X and Y cause each other because they are not each other, then both X and Y also cause themselves by not being each other. So you must presuppose causality no matter what you decide to think about.

That's a bit of specious reasoning. logic and causality are both basically predicted on the identity principle, A=A, which is pretty much an intuitively accepted axiom. The intuitive bit being - If a bounded entity A is A and not not-A, it can only exist in relation to not A.

Logic *is* identity, and causality is what logic concerns itself with. Causality also causes and contains within itself identification along with everything else, so cannot be the subject of identification.

Everything that is not A is a cause of A, therefore A cannot be a cause of A.

If everything that exists is divided into A and not-A:

>A causes not-A by not being not-A
>not-A causes A by not being A
>A and not-A cause themselves by not being (respectively) not-A and A

We can phrase this differently; A and not-A together cause both A and not-A individually. In other words, the All causes each finite thing.

You could say A=A is a logical proof of causality, but I dunno if it makes sense to say that one needs to 'prove' A=A.

A=A isn't proof of anything really. It's just a popular symbol for logical thought.

[visheshdewan050193]

I see the logical line you're attempting to employ -
A is a cause of not A -> Not A is a cause of A -> therefore A is a cause of A

I don't think it's particular useful to think this way. A cause of anything (A) can be defined to be something it is not (not A). By that definition a thing cannot be the cause of itself.
What you've provided seems to detract from the idea of interdependence and the exercise of pointing to the essence of the Infinite (which can be pointed at by prompting the question what happens to the existence of A when the existence of not A ceases)

[jupiviv]

I see the logical line you're attempting to employ -
A is a cause of not A -> Not A is a cause of A -> therefore A is a cause of A

A causes itself by causing not-A. What that means is that A is a part of what causes A, which is A + not-A or the All.

What you've provided seems to detract from the idea of interdependence and the exercise of pointing to the essence of the Infinite (which can be pointed at by prompting the question what happens to the existence of A when the existence of not A ceases)

Literally anything whatsoever points at the essence of the infinite. The idea of interdependence isn't special. Taken in itself, it isn't even particularly insightful or interesting.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A causes itself by causing not-A.

This only makes a bit of sense on some kind of time scale with feedback loops. But that all distracts from the logical, timeless sense.

Saying something causes "itself" defies the essential element of causality. Here "A" is caused by everything else but itself. There's no such thing in the first place, as its existence is seeming. But the existence of "everything else" is really more like totality, logical and timeless instead.

Causality, and as such the eternal, exists. And nothing else does, in the same sense. Only this can answer truthfully to logic.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't know if it's ever been admitted on the forum that accurate modelling and foolproof 'predictability' of events (that seems to be implied by determinism) might just be fundamentally unattainable, and that's fine because it doesn't disprove A=A. Perhaps one could treat any statements regarding ultimate predictability as a piece of empirical knowledge (built upon a set of axioms), therefore uncertain, and therefore not warranting any real philosophic interest?

Predictability would lie completely in the realm of empirical knowledge. Even physics introduces notions like randomness and chaos to outline the limits of predictability, even from the theoretical point of view. But there is still uncertainty within all scientific theories of course.

The value of the idea of (hard) determinism shows itself especially when addressing magical entities: a soul, a creator, free will as main decider of our life choices, sin, big regrets and so on. It's not meant to prop up a cosmology of Russian dolls but it does reflect the higher notion of causality well.

[visheshdewan050193]

Literally anything whatsoever points at the essence of the infinite. The idea of interdependence isn't special. Taken in itself, it isn't even particularly insightful or interesting.

Don't really know what you mean by 'literally anything'. I'm talking about principles that directly and succinctly help 'grasp' the notion of what the Infinite is (why it can't exist or have a form, why it isn't bounded, why it is causeless, why its the basis of everything that exists, etc.). Interdependence, implied intuitively by identity, is pretty much as significant a principle as the equivalence principle is in Einstein's formulation of GR. It's been used in a pretty dull form in Buddhism, but here on GF it's been made pretty significant.

[visheshdewan050193]

The value of the idea of (hard) determinism shows itself especially when addressing magical entities: a soul, a creator, free will as main decider of our life choices, sin, big regrets and so on. It's not meant to prop up a cosmology of Russian dolls but it does reflect the higher notion of causality well.

What do you mean by 'hard' determinism?
Britannica states that - Determinism, in philosophy, is a theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do.

By understanding causality along the lines of interdependence of identity, you can say stuff such as free (i.e. acausal) will doesn't exist, but the practical experience of free will in decision making, choices, etc. does exist - since it isn't necessarily fundamentally predictable.

It's just that by stopping to the level of treating causality as a temporally based conception (if A, then B), we leave wiggling room for people to take up magical entities such as you listed as cornerstones of belief that they can take refuge in or use to shape their lives.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

What do you mean by 'hard' determinism?
Britannica states that - Determinism, in philosophy, is a theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do.

Hard in this case refers to "metaphysical determinism" and only is meaningful in contrast with "soft" variants, which since Kant argues for the human factor being something more in-deterministic, related to the imagination, will, vision and general projecting into the future or ideal. The power of the soft variant would be that the human mind introduces a kind of rebellion against "what is" by introducing a wild card, perhaps not complete free will but at least the hope for one (or a "free world"). This is in the end about the predictability and logic of human behavior in relation to everything else.

By understanding causality along the lines of interdependence of identity, you can say stuff such as free (i.e. acausal) will doesn't exist, but the practical experience of free will in decision making, choices, etc. does exist - since it isn't necessarily fundamentally predictable.

This is really about principle: one assumes it's merely "experience of unpredictability" or if it's in fact, even theoretically, unpredictable.

It's just that by stopping to the level of treating causality as a temporally based conception (if A, then B), we leave wiggling room for people to take up magical entities such as you listed as cornerstones of belief that they can take refuge in or use to shape their lives.

The question here is how to conceive of hope or a vision if not reasoning from the idea one can counter the prevailing forces around you. However, while faith in some decider can help, it's perfectly sane and possible to know about causality and non-existence and still act in all kinds of unpredictable or experimental ways. Interesting in this regard is Kierkegaard's notion of "leap of faith". The idea here is that realizing causality and deterministic forces cannot not provide some position of "knowing everything". Which means that in practice many leaps and uncertainties will still be in place, no matter if one has a correct understanding of the principle of causality or stick to the idea of gods, luck, guides or angels.

[jupiviv]

Causality, and as such the eternal, exists. And nothing else does, in the same sense. Only this can answer truthfully to logic.

The reason why your first sentence - only causality exists - cannot be true is because it has to conclude in your second sentence - nothing else does.

What is this "nothing else"? If it refers to finite things, then it is false because finite things are how causality appears to us. Their interdependence *is* causality. If it refers to some nonsense void consisting of logically impossible things like married bachelors, the point is moot because no serious person would dispute that.

[jupiviv]

Literally anything whatsoever points at the essence of the infinite. The idea of interdependence isn't special. Taken in itself, it isn't even particularly insightful or interesting.

Don't really know what you mean by 'literally anything'. I'm talking about principles that directly and succinctly help 'grasp' the notion of what the Infinite is (why it can't exist or have a form, why it isn't bounded, why it is causeless, why its the basis of everything that exists, etc.).

All finite things point at the infinite in the exact same way as the idea of causality or interdependence. That is why no principle or concept can help you grasp what the infinite is. Consciousness of anything at all is consciousness of interdependence.

There is no higher or alternate kind of consciousness that brings you closer to enlightenment. You will never encounter a special principle or idea that reveals the true nature of your dependence on the ground you walk on or the air you breathe. The "true nature" of things lies within your ordinary awareness of the world.

Of course, this is not to say that one is wise just by virtue of having conscious thoughts or reasoning ability. There are differences - large and small - in how conscious people are or can be of the world and their fellow humans. A person acknowledging inconvenient truths about love, femininity and attachment is wiser than one not doing so, for instance.

Nevertheless there is no "unit" of wisdom. No principle/s or whatever other entity that, if operative in all instances of a person's consciousness, renders it Buddha-like.

The idea that A is dependent on not-A concerns an empty mental construct devoid of any profundity or meaning per se. Its value as wisdom only exists in concert with other things - like what *else* a person thinks or does. Within some minds it may turn into a pearl, within others a zit.

Thus you should be worried if the idea of interdependence induces a feeling of contentment or ataraxia within you. The fact is that you have associated "interdependence" with things that make you feel carefree or happy. Meanwhile interdependence is happening all around you and within you. Causality is lived, not understood.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Causality, and as such the eternal, exists. And nothing else does, in the same sense. Only this can answer truthfully to logic.

The reason why your first sentence - only causality exists - cannot be true is because it has to conclude in your second sentence - nothing else does.

What is this "nothing else"? If it refers to finite things, then it is false because finite things are how causality appears to us.

Causality does not "appear" as anything because that would mean that by pointing at some effect, we now have all the millions of causes by the tail as well. Of course one could go fully holistic on this and claim that the smallest bit of reality equals the whole of reality in the sense of undivided existence. However this is only true in terms of experience and all experience remains limited by its definition. Since causality cannot be limited and remain causality, one simply just ends up with a collection of "causes" or "effects" within the appearance.

Their interdependence *is* causality. If it refers to some nonsense void consisting of logically impossible things like married bachelors, the point is moot because no serious person would dispute that.

And yet, if we'd go with that term and say "there's only interdependence", it would not change one iota of the earlier logic of nothing else being there.

[visheshdewan050193]

Thus you should be worried if the idea of interdependence induces a feeling of contentment or ataraxia within you. The fact is that you have associated "interdependence" with things that make you feel carefree or happy. Meanwhile interdependence is happening all around you and within you. Causality is lived, not understood.

Not particularly relevant to the point I was making.

If enlightenment was a fish that one is trying to spear, then not consciously appraising interdependence of identity would be trying to catch the fish with the blunt end. Of course, the conscious reflection of the 'principle' is in itself just an appearance, nothing more. Interdependence of things and consciousness itself is one of the efficient themes to think about when David mentions to "As frequently as you can, bring your deepest understanding of reality to the forefront of your mind in the shortest amount of time possible."

I'm not saying that there aren't other things to reflect about (attachments, etc.), it's just that there is no logical basis for conceiving enlightenment without it.

[jupiviv]

If enlightenment was a fish that one is trying to spear, then not consciously appraising interdependence of identity would be trying to catch the fish with the blunt end. Of course, the conscious reflection of the 'principle' is in itself just an appearance, nothing more.

Like I said, you can't get enlightened with a principle. Principles apply to finite things no matter how abstract you make them. So the will or desire to be truthful about the nature of finite things cannot originate in them. The will to truth is also a finite thing, and like any finite thing it is created and destroyed by the All. An idea or principle like interdependence is just one infinitesimal part of being wise, and holds no unique interest to such a task.

Interdependence of things and consciousness itself is one of the efficient themes to think about when David mentions to "As frequently as you can, bring your deepest understanding of reality to the forefront of your mind in the shortest amount of time possible."

Enlightenment isn't like transcoding audio files. David's shloka is repeated by a lot of foolish and/or malevolent people; it can mean almost anything so is in fact very inefficient and dangerous, if one decides it conceals some inherent profound meaning. The efficient method is not looking for reasons to be rational, because there aren't any.

I'm not saying that there aren't other things to reflect about (attachments, etc.), it's just that there is no logical basis for conceiving enlightenment without it.

Yes, consciousness necessarily involves discovering the relationships between things. It doesn't follow though that these relationships are based on a specific idea of interdependence. The idea itself is an *instance* of interdependence.

[jupiviv]

The reason why your first sentence - only causality exists - cannot be true is because it has to conclude in your second sentence - nothing else does.

What is this "nothing else"? If it refers to finite things, then it is false because finite things are how causality appears to us.

Causality does not "appear" as anything because that would mean that by pointing at some effect, we now have all the millions of causes by the tail as well.

Things are ultimately the product of causality as a whole, so in that sense causality does appear whenever things do. On the other hand, it doesn't appear as something apart from the ordinary existence of things. So when a chair appears it is just a chair and nothing more; yet the whole of causality appears with it, in the former sense.

Of course one could go fully holistic on this and claim that the smallest bit of reality equals the whole of reality in the sense of undivided existence. However this is only true in terms of experience and all experience remains limited by its definition. Since causality cannot be limited and remain causality, one simply just ends up with a collection of "causes" or "effects" within the appearance.

The differences between things also unite them. Whatever delimits A from not-A is also what causes not-A, and indirectly causes A through not-A. Within the limits of experience lies the seed of the eternal.

Their interdependence *is* causality. If it refers to some nonsense void consisting of logically impossible things like married bachelors, the point is moot because no serious person would dispute that.

And yet, if we'd go with that term and say "there's only interdependence", it would not change one iota of the earlier logic of nothing else being there.

Positing "only causality" does not explain why finite things are being negated or ignored, which doing so necessarily implies. It's like saying that waves are just water, after all.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Principles apply to finite things no matter how abstract you make them. So the will or desire to be truthful about the nature of finite things cannot originate in them. The will to truth is also a finite thing, and like any finite thing it is created and destroyed by the All. An idea or principle like interdependence is just one infinitesimal part of being wise, and holds no unique interest to such a task.

Such "all" cannot be destroyer (meaning here another cause) to any finite thing when that "all" is understood as causality itself.

Things are ultimately the product of causality as a whole, so in that sense causality does appear whenever things do. On the other hand, it doesn't appear as something apart from the ordinary existence of things. So when a chair appears it is just a chair and nothing more; yet the whole of causality appears with it, in the former sense.

Causality cannot appear by definition, in anything at all. Suggesting it has some indirect appearance "with something else" is called piggybacking !

Whatever delimits A from not-A is also what causes not-A, and indirectly causes A through not-A.

Both A and not-A are in that instance equally imaginative and relative. Removing A does not remove totality. The perception "A" remains and "not A" is not perceived at all. Since perception "A" or ΔA does not exist, the unseen "not A" or "¬ΔA" doesn't either. This is exactly why only causality exists.

Positing "only causality" does not explain why finite things are being negated or ignored, which doing so necessarily implies.

Being negated or ignored by whom or what? All things, constructs, beings and superficial worlds carry their own negation into their own imaginary fabric. Highlighting that nature with the insight of fundamental non-existence does not mean negation of anything at all, least of all observation.

It's like saying that waves are just water, after all.

The oceans cannot be experienced or understood by simply surfing a little rolling surface. Let alone water. Or the moon's gravity waves.

[jupiviv]

Principles apply to finite things no matter how abstract you make them. So the will or desire to be truthful about the nature of finite things cannot originate in them. The will to truth is also a finite thing, and like any finite thing it is created and destroyed by the All. An idea or principle like interdependence is just one infinitesimal part of being wise, and holds no unique interest to such a task.

Such "all" cannot be destroyer (meaning here another cause) to any finite thing when that "all" is understood as causality itself.

The All contains whatever end any finite thing comes to, so in that sense is its destroyer.

Things are ultimately the product of causality as a whole, so in that sense causality does appear whenever things do. On the other hand, it doesn't appear as something apart from the ordinary existence of things. So when a chair appears it is just a chair and nothing more; yet the whole of causality appears with it, in the former sense.

Causality cannot appear by definition, in anything at all. Suggesting it has some indirect appearance "with something else" is called piggybacking !

Well then I am a lustful little piggy. I didn't say causality appears indirectly. Rather all of causality appears as ordinary finite things, because they are necessarily bound up with the rest of it. Whatever a thing is allows all the other things to be whatever they happen to be, so by being what it is the thing contains the existence of all things viz. all of causality within itself.

Whatever delimits A from not-A is also what causes not-A, and indirectly causes A through not-A.

Both A and not-A are in that instance equally imaginative and relative. Removing A does not remove totality. The perception "A" remains and "not A" is not perceived at all. Since perception "A" or ΔA does not exist, the unseen "not A" or "¬ΔA" doesn't either. This is exactly why only causality exists.

Either one or both of the two sections of causality (A and not-A) contain all possible instances of conscious perception/conception, since nothing exists outside of them by definition.

Positing "only causality" does not explain why finite things are being negated or ignored, which doing so necessarily implies.

Being negated or ignored by whom or what?

By you. If you think that you don't exist and "only causality" does then why are you asserting its existence? Have you been "only causality" this whole time? String section breaks out in staccato arpeggios as Jupithustra hallucinates a montage of significant moments from previous episodes.

All things, constructs, beings and superficial worlds carry their own negation into their own imaginary fabric. Highlighting that nature with the insight of fundamental non-existence does not mean negation of anything at all, least of all observation.

Then it is pointless to assert that fundamental non-existence is the reason why "only" causality exists.

It's like saying that waves are just water, after all.

The oceans cannot be experienced or understood by simply surfing a little rolling surface. Let alone water. Or the moon's gravity waves.

The profundity of an experience of the ocean lies far beyond the contents of that experience itself. But it does not follow that the experience and its object are profound *despite* what they are.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... all of causality appears as ordinary finite things, because they are necessarily bound up with the rest of it.

Appearances are the opposite of infinitude. If you insist on non-dualism, we still cannot speak of causality "appearing as" since it would be at the same time not appearing as -- or even opposing, destroying, inhibiting that appearance. Which would leave you empty, somewhat robbed.

Whatever a thing is allows all the other things to be whatever they happen to be, so by being what it is the thing contains the existence of all things viz. all of causality within itself.

Things as containers of the infinite? As long as we can agree that this means things do not exist at all, in any way or form, as consequence.

If you think that you don't exist and "only causality" does then why are you asserting its existence? Have you been "only causality" this whole time?

It's true, nothing needs to be asserted here, causality speaks for itself really. All that's asserted is addressing the fancy dreaming & denying.

Then it is pointless to assert that fundamental non-existence is the reason why "only" causality exists.

Because causality certainly exists, one can arrive at the truth of fundamental non-existence of whatever else is said to exist in the same sense.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: The value of the idea of (hard) determinism shows itself especially when addressing magical entities: a soul, a creator, free will as main decider of our life choices, sin, big regrets and so on. It's not meant to prop up a cosmology of Russian dolls but it does reflect the higher notion of causality well.

It is true that only the logic of hard determinism (and nonduality) kills any magical notions of an independent, choosing I, be it of a deity, a creator, a self, a soul, a mind, or a spirit - what a valuable treasure to find! Does my gratitude for hard determinism's logic cause me to 'jump through hoops to defend it' as was suggested in the original post? By my definition, 'jumping through hoops' would be caused if one attempted to extend a dialogue after the other person has clearly indicated their lack of interest. In other words, as long as both parties are interested, defending the value of perspectives is being caused, but not the jumping through hoops.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Does my gratitude for hard determinism's logic cause me to 'jump through hoops to defend it' as was suggested in the original post?

Since I didn't pick those terms, I can only suggest the context was the way causality is sometimes being framed in some of modern physics like quantum mechanics or perhaps in cosmology and certainly religions involving creators or some super-consciousness, which are all suggesting some principle or origination where causality simply stops applying. Instead of addressing this from some technical, scientific or psychological perspective (the "hoops") to demonstrate some other level of causality at work, the focus could indeed remain on the logical necessity which deals with the conceptions and experiences of the mind, of our experience as consciousness, as well.

If the discussion was "interconnecivity" then instead of trying to demonstrate all the connections for each isolated case, one could focus on the principle having to be true at all levels, to have anything at all to connect or disconnect, to merge or to isolate. In the end, to answer the topic question: why have any conversation at all, even centered around logical reasoning? Any reply would answer as well the earlier question.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: In the end, to answer the topic question: why have any conversation at all, even centered around logical reasoning? Any reply would answer as well the earlier question.

Because a conversation about the logic of the totality of causality is the way to break the delusion/illusion of the notion of a God or superconsiousness that is separate from/not effected by causal laws.

Of course, for those who are deeply entrenched in their metaphysical certainties and are unable to see that these fixed views are as much a result of (caused) human subjective reasoning as is the reasoning of any human desire for an ideal world, as you said in the "wisdom in a nutshell thread", "...a defense has to follow."

Until I was caused to come to this board where the purpose is to challenge fixed metaphysical views by way of discussion, I was posting on other boards, defending 'truths' that were of course, not truths at all. Obviously, because any certainties I had were successfully challenged -- fortunately -- I avoided falling into the trap of the entrenched mentality.

I acknowledge that I am probably not adhering to the original purpose of the original post in this thread or even to your answer to my answer...I do hope that in steering it more toward my personal experience of exposure to logical reasoning about the nature of things that I have not strayed too far.

[jupiviv]

... all of causality appears as ordinary finite things, because they are necessarily bound up with the rest of it.

Appearances are the opposite of infinitude. If you insist on non-dualism, we still cannot speak of causality "appearing as" since it would be at the same time not appearing as -- or even opposing, destroying, inhibiting that appearance. Which would leave you empty, somewhat robbed.

But like I've said already, the distinctions between things are also what makes them one body! So causality appears as specific finite things precisely *because* their specific existence/appearance to one's mind negates that of all the other things. That specific negation is always a broader affirmation, the most consistent form of which is wisdom.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

Whatever a thing is allows all the other things to be whatever they happen to be, so by being what it is the thing contains the existence of all things viz. all of causality within itself.

Things as containers of the infinite? As long as we can agree that this means things do not exist at all, in any way or form, as consequence.

No, things *as* the infinite/existence of all things/causality. I don't really care what you call that (total non-existence or total existence) because the point is that the *specific* ordinary existence/appearance of things suffices to explain their true nature.

If you think that you don't exist and "only causality" does then why are you asserting its existence? Have you been "only causality" this whole time?

It's true, nothing needs to be asserted here, causality speaks for itself really. All that's asserted is addressing the fancy dreaming & denying.

Forcibly separating ordinary reality from "only causality" is not "only causality". You are pretending to be a humble vessel of the Force while abusing it to become an immortal ghost that can summon lightning.

Then it is pointless to assert that fundamental non-existence is the reason why "only" causality exists.

Because causality certainly exists, one can arrive at the truth of fundamental non-existence of whatever else is said to exist in the same sense.

There is no difference between the existence of causality and ordinary things. Thus, fundamentally, nothing is non-existent.