(H) Exists in the real world implies either a cause or an effect.
Contraposition of (H): Neither a cause nor an effect implies doesn’t exist in the real world.
You bring up that abstract world has no causation, but that doesn’t appear to say anything about that abstract world has an effect or has no effect. This is where you bring up Beliefs become murky. The beliefs themselves seemed to have have you conflate atoms with non-abstract, instead of putting atoms with abstract. But since atoms are non-abstract, they are a cause. We can have beliefs of non-abstract like atoms. But if they were abstract, then they couldn’t be a cause and couldn’t be of the real world. Objects would even seem to fall for the abstract, instead of non-abstract.
If we have a belief about the non-abstract world, the real world, then that belief can’t be a proposition. For, being a proposition implies being abstract. If a belief isn’t of a proposition, then not abstract. This would mean that only hold beliefs isn’t of the abstract. Maybe say, If some beliefs are propositions and some beliefs are not propositions, then some beliefs are abstract and some beliefs are non-abstract. So Belief of atoms of the world world, can be a belief of abstract or not belief of abstract.
Belief of atoms would be an abstract belief, since atoms abstract as physics describes. So what particle physicist say about atoms can’t be a cause, but what particle physicist say about atoms can be an effect. An effect of what? Can’t be what they Belief or saying is the cause. Those are abstract. They also appear to be what take as Objects of the real world, which in turn would mean those objects aren’t causes, they are an effect of abstract.
If I could think of it, it would be a cause. So the principle put forward is certainly not going to be defeated by giving an example. It’s unfalsifiable, because of how perception works. I can’t think of any logical reason offhand that there can’t be something that is neither a cause nor an effect.
How about the very concept of existence.
That which has absolutely no affect (and thus no effect), does not exist, by definition.
Anything said to actually exist must be “a cause”, else it doesn’t actually exist.
But then anything that affects something else, is simultaneously affected merely by yielding the affect if nothing else. Thus every affect is a cause and creates an effect. And every effect cannot escape being a cause if it is to exist.
To falsify it, simply find something that has absolutely no affect, yet clearly exists (besides our rantings on these forums).
But linear time is not accidental.
It’s not a matter of perspective.
Why we consider something a cause of something else is based on the flow of time - time being a measurement of change.
Is it possible that entropy is increasing and decreasing simultaneously?
Yes, but it is not verifiable.
The concept of looping is what the brain needs to close-off the mental model of the universe, into a cohesive, balanced, whole
The brain wants to abstract everything, order it all.
If it can’t it does not comprehend.
To perceive the reverse of entropy, ordering, the mind would have to begin forgetting or UN-percieving.
Remember, for me the brain is an ordering tool. It evolves only within a state of disordering, of entropy, or increasing randomness, as a reaction to it.
In the direction of decreasing entropy, the towards the Big Crunch, increasing order, the brain is superfluous.
It is unnecessary.
The brain is a survival tool.
It aids the organism in maintaining itself within an environment which is threatening to its cohesion.
Everything that currently exists is an effect. It will become a cause when it causes something else to become an effect. If it is a cause, it was already an effect previously.
It is raining. That’s an effect of supersaturated air cooling at high altitude, and it’s the cause of the ground being wet.
The great majority of things, possibly all of them, can be described in many contexts as causes and effects. Therefore the OP title is incorrect.
Cause and effect is a category of how we perceive, narrate and predict events in a regularly-changing world. If there’s no regularity to a change, we see it as uncaused, or postulate causes.