Is Causality Observable?

Question

We assume that by moving our hand we can 'cause' a ball to be tossed in the air...and we take it for granted as we seem to be able to observe all sorts of instances of this.

When a shadow hand moves though, we can observe a shadow ball being tossed upward as well...but we wouldn't say that the shadow hand 'causes' the shadow ball to be thrown, right?

So why do we presume that anything we see is really causal and not simply concurrent spontanaeity?

(if I recall correctly David Hume discussed this kind of stuff?)

Thanks for your thoughts!

-Rob

added:
Newton also calculated that bodies could neither act upon each other by contact nor could they influence each other at a distance, correct? He concluded that they merely behaved as though their actions were related, though the actual relation itself was not observable(at least to him).

Answer 1

No, we assume our perspective takes into account all of reality. That is the weakness of the Scientific Method, and thus of Science itself. By relying on observation we must assume that we can observe everything operating in reality, and that our observation does not significantly change what is being observed.

We do not know what the shadows perspective is, or if we ourselves are some sort of shadow.

Answer 2

The shadow hand is the byproduct of the actual hand, while the shadow ball is the byproduct of the actual ball. The two are unrelated factors, and simply reflect the actions of two other factors that happen to be interacting.

Answer 3

what caused the hand to throw the ball? Spontanaety isn't possible. There are MANY layers of causation. So many so that all of action seems to be an effect... no matter how far to the source you get.