Before it became certain, certainty was in the stage of doubt, study and uncertainty

 Before it became certain, certainty was in the stage of doubt, study, uncertainty and hypothesis. It is initially atheory, but having been proven it becomes a constant certainty that does not change. Uncertainty, hypothesis, probability and a theory may all be changed, modified or developed, but certainty is not affected by such things, otherwise, it couldn’t initially be certainty. The terms, divisions, and definitions are neither binding nor proof of anything. Due to the misunderstanding of induction and the influence of the terminology and divisions, the concept of causality has been described by some as being incomplete induction, influenced by Aristotle’s division of induction into two kinds: the complete induction and the incomplete induction, although the definition of complete induction by Aristotle is a state of mind that cannot occur in reality because it is impossible to conduct a study or do an experiment on the general elements of any object under study in all existence, especially since the thing (the object) is growing, reproducing, multiplying and expanding!

Away from the authority of terminology and its impact, and studying the concept of causation in reality the way it is, we note that the proof of the principle of causality by virtue of complete extrapolation includes all the elements under consideration, that are of the same kind as the thing in question and it is final in judgment and not incomplete or deficient. We don’t mean by the word “complete” Aristotle’s concept, but rather we mean that what applies to the elements under study includes all the elements of their kind and type. Hence, it is advisable not to confuse the topics and adhere to the previous definitions and divisions without cognizance, evidence or the thinking.
There is deceptive reasoning as a result of terminology and divisions, beware of that. In fact, the problem is in the learner’s understanding, his not breaking free from the terms and divisions, and in his faulty tackling of the idea. Induction, in fact, depends on the nature and type of the thing. It differs according to the type: either material or abstract. For example, when iron is exposed to heat, it expands and when we do the same experiment on any other metal and find it expanding, we extrapolate that every metal has the metallic properties of expanding when heated. There is no need to do an experiment on all the metals of the universe. This complete induction is definite in its judgment on its material and on its place of attachment (i. e. subject matter).
Likewise, when we observe as in any experiment in reality that every action has a cause and a doer/actor, and that every movement must have a force to move it, regardless of knowing about the doer or the force. This never fails, so, we extrapolate that an action – any action – must necessarily and inevitably have a doer in a full induction. Hence, it would not be correct to assume that there can be actions that take place without an actor/doer outside our epistemic environment, such as the supposition of parallel universes, since that is a mental (imaginative) assumption that has no value and cannot be dealt with or discussed because it is contrary to reality.
There is nothing outside time and space, whether it is within the circle of human knowledge or has not yet entered the scope of human cognition. It is all the same whether there are parallel universes or not, they are, of necessity, included in the concept of the occurring universe regardless of the change in the form or the relative laws that govern them. In addition, the principle of causality includes them, since it is proved through induction which is valid as for everything already described as an action or occurrence. But should you desire to assume the denial of causality from a particular existence, it would require you to prove the existence of a non-occurrent, and hence, an existence outside the framework of time and space. In fact, we prove that in relation to the Creator as He is the only eternal and everlasting (being or existence) outside time and place while the principle of causality, which is specific to the occuurring actions, does not apply to Him.
Does an occurrent thing, then, have two rules with those (pretenders)?
A known occurrence to which the causality rule applies and it is a certainty, and an unknown occurrence for which they assume that the causality rule is denied, or they doubt its existence (the causality’s)!
Do you not notice that they discuss a mental issue, which they presume and accordingly want to prove, deny or make the certainty uncertain?
Hence, deal with reality and certainty and build your concepts upon them and drop out your imaginations, suspicion and illusion. Keep in mind that your attitude about the rule of causation and your swinging about it between the earthly certainty and the cosmic uncertainty is as the example of him who says: an action on the earth must have an actor/doer of necessity, but in Mars the action can take place without an actor or a cause; it is probable, and we cannot prove it unless we ascend to Mars and see it ourselves; and so is the case on every planet or galaxy! Therefore, they end up their argument by saying: We do not know, science hasn’t done with it yet, and research is still going on!
So, think of it, my friend, and figure it out .