Even though your clarity of thought often impresses me, I must confess sometimes I can't make any sense of what you write. What do you mean 'no cause and effect'? I do agree that cause-and-effect can't possibly explain reality as a whole, but at the same time I see causality as part of reality itself. That is, causality is a concept which is meaningful only when applied to objects within the universe. But just because the universe is not an object it doesn't mean that all concepts we apply to objects are meaningless or, at best, unreal. The universe provides the context in which our experiences become real; the universe itself is definitely not real but that doesn't bother me in the least.
" Paul has been trying to find the end of a piece of string where he can start his reasoning "
I gather that what Paul is trying to do is reconcile my last statement above. Why is it that reality is ultimately unreal? Why is it that we can know so much about reality, and yet the only thing we can be absolutely sure about is that 'I' exist, 'I' being defined as something outside reality. I think I have solved that problem myself but I doubt I can communicate my solution. And I think you have also solved the problem, in a different way, and I also doubt your solution is communicable.
As I said before, it gets pretty lonely in here sometimes.