=20

In the real world each event has multiple causes, so think of
many chains attached to an object, with some pushed (acausal)
and some pulled (causal). But each chain has a limited length.
When all the other chains pull against it, that chain then prevents
the object exceeding its range. It was acausal up to its limit.

For example:
In a certain family, two children are inseparable and the parents are =

especially wealthy but can afford a vacation. They have a used car =

the money could be used to buy a new one in part exchange or spent on
the vacation.
The parents will allow the children to choose a venue.
One child chooses Disneyland, the other chooses Disneyworld.
Only one of these can be visited during the vacation due to budgetary
considerations (the chain that has a limit). =20
It would be within budget to take separate vacations.
Mom has been to neither, Dad went to Disneyland when he was a child.
Last week there was an accident at Disneyworld and a child was =

Mom is slightly worried about the children being injured and has a =

misapprehension about Disneyworld due to the recent accident.
Dad claims not to mind, but is slightly prejudiced in favour of =

he's seen Disneyland. Also he'd like a new car. Dad flips a coin, Mom =

it comes down heads. Elder child says "Best of three, dad".
What actually tips the scales so that Disneyland is selected?

During the vacation one child contracts a disease from a passing =

is hospitalized, contracts MRSA and later dies.

Dad says "If only I'd bought the car, my daughter would still be =

Mom says "If only we'd gone to Disneyworld, my daughter would still =

The remaining child says "If only we had gone where *I* wanted to, my =

would still be alive".
The dead child says nothing.

It doesn't matter, it's too late to change it and anyone could have =

And so we erect guard rails and impose speed limits and wear our seat =

and campaign to raise money to develop new drugs to fight methicillin =

Staphylococcus aureus and take all the precautions we can to try to =

but ultimately they still happen.

=20
=20
Your example seems fine. But, i don't see how it proves your point
that "real world events have multiple causes".

=20
I think it like this:-
=20
A- light waves

B-Apple pie
C- single slit
=20
A-C(interaction) =3Ddiffraction
B-C =3D definetly not diffraction
=20
As A and B are distinct, they both react distinctly to the same
material B.
=20
=20
Here its like this:-
=20
M =3D Mom
D =3D Dad
K =3D The living kid
U =3D universe (i.e. everything that M, D and K experience)
=20
As M, D and K are distinct, their interactions with U will also be
distinct.
M-U
M-D
M-K
[These are merely how M, D and K percieve the world.]
=20
As our subjects are humans, so they have this emotional
parameter( lets call it e-factor) embedded in their characteristics.
=20
e-factor of each individual lets them choose what to notice and what
to ignore. For instcance, k notices the fun part while ignoring the
health concerns and M notices the health part while not giving much
thought to the fun part. So, ultimately, nobody knows everything.
=20
As the interactions ( M-U,M-D and M-K) are distinct, it lets M, D and
K come up with distinct theories of explanation for the same real
world event( the death of the other child).[Like the lightwaves and
apple pie case]
=20
=20
This doesn't necessitate that there were multiple distint causes fot
that event. It simply means that there was( may be) only one cause (or
one chain of events that acted as a cause); information of which is
actually encrypted in U not in(M-U, M-D or M-K). If there was an M-T
where T's e-factor would help notice that one cause while T interacts
with U, then T's interpretation would be correct and M, D and K would
agree with T.
=20
=20

We all have 20-20 hindsight and no foresight, but that's the way the =

and we don't really have good hindsight either. =20

Was it the flip of the coin that led to the child's death?
Who had control of the coin?

=20
the coin was controlled by M, D and K's lack of decisiveness and
gravity. Kid's death was caused by the passing stranger.
=20
=20
If anyone(M, D or K) had prior information on that infected stranger,
they'd have had fore-sight.(though it's only possible idealy)
=20
But the world isn't ideal. That's why it is the way it is. That's why
we don't have prior information on anything and that's what leads to
superstition, luck and god etc.,
=20
Imagine if M D and K could have quantitative information on what they
needed. i.e. the quantitative values of emotional pleasure that they
needed out of the vacation and the emotional pleasure that they would
derive out of either disneyland or disneyworld.
=20
They would just put it in equations and then go for the one that gives
a bigger no.( either Dis.wor or Dis.lan.). They wouldn't have gone for
the coin.
=20
=20
=20