> There has to be a logical stopping point to investigations, because at some point they just become metaphysics. The law understands this point very well, whi

> There has to be a logical stopping point to investigations, because at some point they just become metaphysics. The law understands this point very well, which is why it has developed concepts like Proximate cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause Rules of evidence also arose to prevent investigations and analyses from getting lost in the weeds. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law) Though they're highly tuned to witness testimony and similar mushy issues--intent, etc--so don't translate well. But whenever you hear about a court tossing out evidence, or doing something seemingly inane like (in a recent high-profile case) preventing a juror from using a smartphone to "zoom in" to a piece of evidence, it's precisely this role that is being (or attempted to be) primarily served--preventing scope creep and the endless bickering that will inevitably result. The rabbit hole is bottomless, and whatever stopping points you choose are often arbitrary--they especially seem so to outsiders.