causation
Regularities, even when expressed mathematically as laws of nature, are not fully satisfactory to everyone. Some insist that genuine understanding demands explanations of the causes of the laws, but it is in the realm of that there is the greatest disagreement. Modern quantum mechanics, for example, has given up the quest for causation and today rests only on mathematical description. Modern biology, on the other hand, thrives on causal chains that permit the understanding of physiological and evolutionary processes in terms of the physical activities of entities such as molecules, cells, and organisms. But even if causation and explanation are admitted as necessary, there is little agreement on the kinds of causes that are permissible, or possible, in science. If the history of science is to make any sense whatsoever, it is necessary to deal with the past on its own terms, and the fact is that for most of the history of science natural philosophers appealed to causes that would be summarily rejected by modern scientists. Spiritual and divine forces were accepted as both real and necessary until the end of the 18th century and, in areas such as biology, deep into the 19th century as well.

causality
Although he early, and indirectly, came under the influence of Ernst Mach, Heisenberg, in his philosophical writings about quantum mechanics, vigorously opposed the Logical Positivism developed by philosophers of science of the Vienna Circle. According to Heisenberg, what was revealed by active observation was not an absolute datum, but a theory-laden datum—i.e., relativized by theory and contextualized by observational situations. He took classical mechanics and electromagnetics, which articulated the objective motions of bodies in space-time, to be permanently valid, though not applicable to quantum mechanical systems; he took to apply in general not to individual quantum mechanical systems but to mathematical representations alone, since particle behaviour could be predicted only on the basis of probability.

The Logical Positivist school differs from earlier empiricists and positivists (David Hume, Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification rather than upon personal experience. It differs from Auguste Comte and J.S. Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless - that the "great unanswerable questions" about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. All genuine philosophy (according to the group that came to be called the Vienna Circle) is a critique of language; and (according to some of its leading members) its result is to show the unity of science - that all genuine knowledge about nature can be expressed in a single language common to all the sciences.

that all genuine knowledge about nature can be expressed in a single language common to all the sciences.

1.      The RMCM appears to agree somewhat with Logical Positivism. Regardless, there is only one way now to find truth in a secular context, and that is through technology itself. Technology is the truth. Technology is not a theory on causation; technology is causation. Until we begin to encapsulate all of the sciences as the discovery of the universe's technology, we will be blind to all manner of looming disasters.

2.      Hardware is technology; software is not technology. Technology makes an existential difference. An idea never makes any existential difference. Only the biological technology of individuals makes the existential difference. To design a booby-trap is meaningless and makes no difference. To implement that design is quite meaningful and makes a difference. For this reason and for many other reasons we can encapsulate CAUSE as an event of existential difference. We can encapsulate cause as the implementation of difference. The definition of Cause achieves this for all attributes of the existential. This definition will not fail. Even in the depths of the densest black hole there is some existential difference in the amount of gravity present at all points along all three axis. The event horizon of a black hole is the implementation of a continuum of gravitational events. The RMCM asserts that there are two distinct event horizons of a black hole. There is the outermost event horizon, and there is an innermost event horizon. The outermost event horizon is one of extent. The innermost event horizon is one of frequency. The smallest size in the existential universe is the size described by one mass event or one iteration of the speed of light squared. Gravity then can be defined as one half of a single mass event. A glancing blow toward the existential.

3.      DNA is clearly binary.

DNA is a polymer of the four nucleotides A, C, G, and T, which are joined through a backbone of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose sugar residues. These nitrogen-containing bases occur in complementary pairs as determined by their ability to form hydrogen bonds between them [a bond in the RMCM is encapsulated as the Chase©]. A always pairs with T through two hydrogen bonds, and G always pairs with C through three hydrogen bonds.

4.      This is in essence a binary code innately 0 or 1 through binding (The Chase©), and start bit and stop bit through orientation. This way or vice a verse, is arguable. If inheritance is a terminal problem for "intelligently designed" software, then how does nature get away with it? Nature doesn't. It needs viruses to transfer new templates from one species to another. Viral RNA isn't constrained to base pairs. It can bring novel binary constructs to bear on a limited or failing inheritance. Template swapping and inheritance combined make increasingly complex life possible. If we encapsulate the reproductive system as a primitive metabolism on its own, then we can begin to envision how life could have grown out of more primitive metabolisms. Metabolisms so fractured and dispersed that we don't think of them as such. The closest thing we have to them is probably the echo system itself. If one can see an echo system as a metabolic analog, then we can begin to encapsulate the history of life in the four terms primitive, modern, simple, or complex.

5.      Life can be modern or primitive relative to the dispersion of metabolisms or as simple or complex depending on the creature's perceptive/behavioral distance from the living machine. The more dispersed the attributes of a given metabolism the more primitive the construct. The more tightly bound to DNA, like single celled life, the simpler the life form. We are thus free to see sexual and asexual reproduction as concurrent developments rather than being forced to think of single celled life as having come first and trying to figure out what made it decide to become a concert of two or more. For all we know single celled life is the new comer and multi-cellular life came first (see diversification and purification).

6.      To make any sense of the event-difference conundrum there must be a source of yet simpler events or attributes hidden by a complex event horizon. This event horizon is referred to in the RMCM as a Condition. That transcendence which crosses from an antecedent simplicity to complexity is the Divine rise of Novelty and encapsulated as a conditional shift. The RMCM encapsulates this novelty as Value. A shift is encapsulated in the Model according to hierarchy.

7.      Definition of Growth : the abstraction of value from metabolism. The RMCM encapsulates the crossover event in and of itself as a Shift. Difference arises via Shifting. The Model encapsulates the shift as an aggregate of two identifiable granules (parts). One granule is "Cause", and the other granule is "Effect". The Shift executes this climb up the ladder of complexity iteratively as difference opening and difference closing. This provides us with our definitions for Cause : difference opened, and Effect : difference closed. As hard as it may be to talk of Cause indifferently to Effect, a good model provides for such distinctions. A good and true model of the universe should, in and of itself, provide all of us, including those with rudimentary vocabulary and reading skills, genuine access to all possible fields of endeavor, so that we have equal access to God's plan for each of us.

8.      Granted this can be argued as still just another case of "handing off" ultimate causes or origins to some un-provable otherness. Nevertheless, we can and must build models that can be tested to show that such otherness is at least existential. We can and must find an encapsulation of the universe that can bind all disciplines persistently, because technology will deliver powerful containers available to the "everyman".

9.      The source of mass is an aggregate of influences, and this would be a universe where pure cause persists independently of any precise effect. Our only knowledge of such a universe is Transcendence, gravity. Gravity persists as itself whether or not there is any kind of substance in proximity. Placing an object of any kind into the proximity of gravity does not change gravity. Unlike radiation (or light), which can be blocked by an appropriate mass, gravity is not an actual part of our universe.