Definitions by Abzugal

Theory of Elasticity of Causality

A speculative framework proposing that causality itself has elastic properties—that causal relationships can stretch, compress, or deform under extreme conditions without breaking. Theory of Elasticity of Causality suggests that cause and effect aren't always rigidly separated; they can stretch across time, bend around obstacles, or compress into near-simultaneity. The theory identifies causality's elastic limits: when does stretching become violation? When does compression become paradox? Understanding reality requires understanding how far causality can stretch without snapping.

Theory of Elasticity of Causality "In quantum mechanics, causes and effects seem to stretch—particles influenced by measurements that haven't happened yet. Elasticity of Causality says: maybe causality stretches, like a rubber band. It doesn't break; it just deforms. The question isn't whether causality holds; it's how far it can stretch before it has to snap back."

Theory of Elasticity of Causality by Abzugal March 5, 2026

Theory of Preservation of Causality

A framework asserting that causality is preserved under all physical transformations—no matter how extreme the conditions, cause will always precede effect. Theory of Preservation of Causality suggests that causality isn't just a regularity but an inviolable structure of reality. Even in quantum mechanics, even in black holes, even in speculative FTL scenarios—causality holds. The theory doesn't explain how; it posits that preservation is fundamental. It's the physicist's faith: cause before effect, always and everywhere.

Theory of Preservation of Causality "Quantum entanglement seems instantaneous—effect without time for cause. Preservation of Causality says: the cause is just hidden, not absent. Information may travel differently, but causality always wins. The theory is a bet: keep looking, and you'll find the causal chain. Causality preserved, always."

Theory of Preservation of Causality by Abzugal March 5, 2026

Theory of Conservation of Causality

A fundamental principle proposing that causality is conserved—like energy, momentum, or charge—across all physical interactions. Theory of Conservation of Causality suggests that cause-effect relationships cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed or redistributed. In this framework, apparent causality violations (quantum indeterminacy, time travel paradoxes) are actually transformations: causality moves elsewhere, changes form, but the total causal structure remains constant. The theory provides a budget for reality: you can spend causal influence, but you can't print it. Every effect must be paid for by a cause somewhere, sometime.

Theory of Conservation of Causality "Time travel stories always have paradoxes—kill your grandfather, you're never born. Conservation of Causality says: can't happen. Causality is conserved like energy. You can rearrange it, but you can't destroy it. The paradox is impossible because causality has a budget, and you can't overspend."

Theory of Conservation of Causality by Abzugal March 5, 2026

Westsplaining

A form of condescending explanation where someone from a Western context explains to non-Westerners the "truth" about their own situation, often while dismissing their perspectives as culturally biased or insufficiently objective. The term combines "Western" with "mansplaining" to capture the dynamic of assumed epistemic authority based on Western location. Westsplaining typically involves universalizing Western experience, treating Western frameworks as neutral, and dismissing non-Western perspectives as particular or biased. It's a form of intellectual colonialism dressed as explanation.

"I tried to explain my country's political dynamics. Response from a Western academic: 'Let me clarify how democracy actually works.' That's Westsplaining—assuming that Western frameworks are universal, that your local knowledge is just perspective, and that their outsider view is objective truth. Westsplaining is what happens when privilege becomes pedagogy and explanation becomes erasure."

Westsplaining by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Fallacy of Prohibited Comparison

The fallacy where someone claims you cannot point out double standards, hypocrisy, or make certain comparisons in political debates, often by invoking exceptionalism or special circumstances. "You can't compare X to Y!" becomes a way of shielding a position from uncomfortable parallels. The fallacy lies in prohibiting comparison altogether rather than engaging the actual similarities and differences. Often paired with the Fallacy of Relative Exception (using exceptional cases to dismiss comparison) and the Fallacy of Absolute Exception (treating differences as absolute barriers to comparison). Westsplaining is a classic example—the assumption that Western contexts are so unique that comparisons with other contexts are automatically invalid.

"I pointed out similarities between Western foreign policy and actions we condemn in other nations. Response: 'You can't compare us to them—we're completely different!' That's Fallacy of Prohibited Comparison—shutting down comparison rather than engaging it. All comparisons have differences; the question is whether the similarities are meaningful. Prohibiting comparison altogether is just a way of avoiding uncomfortable parallels."

Fallacy of Prohibited Comparison by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Electionsplaining

A condescending rhetorical move where someone explains political outcomes to others—often from a position of assumed expertise or outsider status—as if election results were simple, obvious, and conclusive. "Let me explain why your side lost" becomes a way of dismissing opposition views without engagement. The term plays on "mansplaining" but applies to electoral analysis: the assumption that election results are transparent, that losers just don't get it, and that the explainer's interpretation is obviously correct. Electionsplaining uses electoral outcomes as a cudgel to silence dissent.

"After the election, he spent an hour explaining why my views are irrelevant because 'the people have spoken.' That's Electionsplaining—using electoral outcomes to dismiss, not to understand. Election results are complex; they require interpretation, not condescension. Electionsplaining is what happens when winning becomes wisdom and explaining becomes silencing."

Electionsplaining by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Argument from Elections

A related fallacy where someone argues that a position must be accepted because it was supported by election results. The structure: "X won the election, therefore X's policies are correct." The fallacy lies in moving from electoral success to epistemic authority, from votes to validity. Elections confer power, not truth. Argument from Elections is a form of appeal to popularity, dressed in democratic clothing.

"Why should we accept this policy? Because the candidate who promised it won in a landslide!" That's Argument from Elections—treating electoral victory as justification. But winning doesn't make right; it just makes powerful. Arguments from elections are arguments from authority with ballots instead of credentials."

Argument from Elections by Abzugal February 28, 2026