Last Updated on August 20, 2026 by Rob Cashman
Missing Variables is a project by Rob Cashman.
The Purpose of Missing Variables
The purpose of this project is to explore scientific concepts, philosophical questions, and questions about the nature of observation, knowledge, reality, and the assumptions we make about the world around us.
Many of the questions explored here arise at the boundaries between disciplines.
A scientific observation may raise a philosophical question. A philosophical problem may reveal an assumption hidden inside a scientific model. An idea encountered in one field may suggest an interesting analogy to an idea encountered somewhere else.
At times, these explorations may also draw upon concepts I have encountered in my own study of Torah, Chassidus, and other Jewish sources.
The purpose of placing ideas beside one another is not necessarily to prove that they are equivalent, historically connected, or mutually validating. Sometimes the purpose is simply to ask whether placing them together reveals a question that might otherwise have remained unnoticed.
This site is therefore intended as a place of exploration.
The articles published here may contain observations, questions, interpretations, analogies, hypotheses, and speculation. These should not all be treated as the same kind of statement.
One of the central purposes of this page is to explain the difference.
Sources Are Not the Same as Interpretations
A source says what it says.
That may sound obvious, but the distinction can become blurred surprisingly quickly.
A scientific paper may report a particular experiment and its results. A philosophical text may make a particular argument. A Torah source may use particular language within a particular context.
Before asking what a source means, it is important to ask:
What does the source actually say?
My description or summary of a source is not the source itself.
My understanding of a source is not necessarily the understanding intended by its author.
And the fact that I cite a source does not mean that every conclusion I draw afterward is explicitly contained within that source.
Whenever possible, readers should distinguish between:
- What the original source explicitly states.
- How I am describing or summarizing that source.
- What interpretation is being applied to it.
- What additional conclusions, if any, are being drawn from it.
These distinctions are particularly important when a source is being used as the starting point for a broader question or cross-disciplinary exploration.
Interpretation Is Not the Same as Analogy
Interpreting an idea involves attempting to understand what that idea means.
An analogy involves placing that idea beside something else and asking whether there is a meaningful similarity between them.
These are different activities.
For example, I may discuss a concept from one field and attempt to explain what the source itself appears to mean. I may then observe that the concept reminds me of something encountered in another field.
- That second step does not necessarily tell us anything about what the original source intended.
- The source may not have been discussing the second subject at all.
- The similarity may be meaningful.
- It may be superficial.
- It may reveal something interesting.
- Or it may ultimately turn out to be misleading.
The fact that two ideas can be placed beside one another does not establish that they describe the same thing.
Throughout this site, I will try to distinguish between:
- What the source says.
- How the source is interpreted.
- What analogy or comparison I am introducing.
Those should not be collapsed into a single claim.
Analogy Is Not Proof
Analogies can be useful.
They can make difficult ideas easier to visualize. They can reveal structural similarities between apparently unrelated concepts. They can generate new questions.
But an analogy does not establish that two things are identical.
A resemblance is not proof of a relationship.
A parallel does not necessarily establish causation, equivalence, historical connection, or common meaning.
Two ideas may share an interesting structure while remaining fundamentally different in origin, mechanism, purpose, or meaning.
For that reason:
- An analogy is not proof.
- A parallel is not necessarily a source.
- Similarity is not identity.
An analogy may provide a reason to investigate a question. It is not, by itself, an answer to that question.
Speculation Is Not Assertion
Some of the questions explored on Missing Variables may go beyond what existing sources or evidence explicitly establish.
When that happens, I may speculate.
I may ask:
- What if this interpretation is incomplete?
- What assumption is hidden inside this model?
- Is there another possible way of understanding what we are observing?
- Could these two ideas be related in a way that has not yet been considered?
These questions should be understood as questions.
A possibility is not an established conclusion.
A hypothesis is not evidence.
And speculation should not be presented as certainty merely because it is interesting, intuitive, or aesthetically satisfying.
Where I am speculating, I will attempt to make that clear.
Of course, the boundary between observation, interpretation, and speculation is not always perfectly sharp. Part of the purpose of this site is to examine those boundaries themselves.
Readers should therefore feel free to ask:
- What is actually established here?
- What is being inferred?
- What assumptions are necessary for this conclusion?
- What other explanations might be possible?
Those are not challenges to the purpose of Missing Variables; they are part of the purpose.
Questions Are Not Conclusions
The act of asking a question should not be confused with asserting an answer.
A question may be worth exploring even when the answer is unknown.
Sometimes an article may end with greater uncertainty than it began with. That is not necessarily a failure.
An investigation can be valuable because it reveals that an apparently obvious question contained an assumption that had not previously been noticed. Sometimes the most useful result of an inquiry is not an answer.
Sometimes it is the discovery that we may have been asking the wrong question. Or, that there may be a variable missing from the model.
Observation, Interpretation, and the Observer
A recurring theme of Missing Variables is the distinction between what is observed and what is inferred from an observation.
We often speak as though observation gives us direct access to the thing we are discussing.
But observation may involve many stages:
- Something exists or occurs.
- Some aspect of it interacts with something else.
- Information is transmitted, filtered, transformed, or lost.
- An instrument or sensory system receives part of that information.
- The information is processed.
- A model or interpretation is constructed.
- We then describe the result as an observation of the original thing.
Each stage may involve assumptions; each stage may introduce limitations; each stage may leave something out.
This does not mean that observation is meaningless or that knowledge is impossible — it means that we should be careful about claiming that the final model is identical to the thing we are attempting to understand.
One of the recurring questions of this project is therefore:
What exactly have we observed—and what have we inferred from what we observed?
Torah, Chassidus, and Religious Sources
At times, I may discuss concepts that I have encountered in my own study of Torah, Chassidus, and other Jewish sources.
These subjects require an additional degree of care.
Torah texts exist within interpretive traditions, linguistic contexts, and frameworks of learning that extend far beyond my own personal understanding.
A concept that appears simple when extracted from a passage may have many layers of interpretation, qualification, or meaning that are not apparent to someone encountering it independently.
For that reason, readers should be particularly careful to distinguish between:
- What the original source explicitly says.
- How recognized commentators or teachers have interpreted that source.
- My own understanding of the concept.
- Any analogy, speculation, or cross-disciplinary extrapolation that I introduce.
These are not the same thing.
The fact that I discuss a Torah or Chassidic concept alongside a scientific, philosophical, or metaphysical idea does not mean that the Torah source explicitly teaches the scientific or philosophical conclusion being discussed.
Likewise, a scientific observation should not automatically be treated as proof of a particular Torah or Chassidic interpretation merely because an interesting analogy can be drawn between them.
The relationship may be worth exploring; but exploration is not assertion.
I Am Not a Rabbinic Authority
I am not a rabbi, and I do not hold semicha.
Nothing on this website should be understood as a ruling on Halacha, an authoritative interpretation of Torah, Chassidus, or a substitute for learning from qualified teachers and recognized Torah sources.
I am sharing my own thoughts, questions, observations, and attempts to explore ideas.
Please do not cite anything written here as evidence that:
- “Torah says this.”
- “Chassidus teaches this.”
- “This is how Halacha should be understood.”
- “This source proves this scientific, philosophical, or metaphysical conclusion.”
Unless a claim is directly and accurately supported by the source itself, it should not be attributed to Torah, Chassidus, or any particular Torah authority merely because I have discussed those ideas together.
My interpretation of an idea is not necessarily the interpretation intended by the original source.
And an analogy that I introduce is not necessarily contained within, implied by, or endorsed by that source.
If I have misunderstood, oversimplified, or incorrectly represented a Torah concept, the mistake is mine.
Learn the Sources Yourself
My encounters with Torah and Chassidus are part of my own ongoing learning journey.
I am not presenting myself as someone qualified to authoritatively teach or interpret these subjects.
If something on this site interests you—particularly something involving Torah (Written or Oral Torah), Chassidus, or Halacha—I encourage you to learn the original sources yourself and to study them with qualified teachers.
Do not rely upon this website as your primary source for Torah learning.
The same principle applies more broadly throughout Missing Variables.
- Where possible, follow the sources.
- Read the underlying material.
- Ask whether my description accurately represents what I am discussing.
- Examine the assumptions behind the argument.
- Consider alternative explanations.
Do not accept an idea merely because it appears on this website.
The purpose of this project is not to replace your own inquiry. It is, hopefully, to encourage it.
A Sandbox for Ideas
Perhaps the best way to understand Missing Variables is as a kind of sandbox.
I am exploring.
I am asking questions.
I am placing ideas next to one another and seeing what questions emerge.
- Sometimes those explorations may lead somewhere interesting.
- Sometimes they may reveal that an assumption was wrong.
- Sometimes the connection between two ideas may turn out to be superficial.
- Sometimes a question that initially appears promising may lead nowhere.
- And sometimes the most valuable result of an inquiry may simply be the discovery of a question that had not previously been asked.
Think of me, then, not as someone building a finished structure and declaring that it represents reality, but as a child building sand castles at the edge of an ocean.
The castles are experiments. The ocean is much larger.
And the point is not to mistake the sand castle for the world beyond it.