I have been asked to write a couple of papers with a mathematician who has made extensive use of casual theory in his career and done pretty well. All i will be providing is neuroscience knowhow but obviously as a co-author i need to accept some responsibility for his product. Without getting into specific examples (although i can provide some if needed) here I am sure many here will be familiar with the concept of causality and how its applied in many fields. It seems to me that causality is kind of a general circular way of "perceiving" events, their actions and relations such that anything can be stated to be causal..which is why it is popular. It also seems that its so general that we can take any system and assign it into casual sets.. then do as we like. So many areas of math and physics have been coded into such sets and manipulated correctly But is causality a profound theoretical framework it proposes to be ? it seems to me very loose in the sense of having no specific means to falsify the validity of its use. We can use it sure, but it doesnt actually tell me anything specific.