Yes, basically thats it .
Im just challenging the idea that a cause has to come before something. Even if that is highly illogical.

It doesn't follow that because we discover the cause after the event, that the cause happened after the event. I may discover after the event that the ball broke the window, but that doesn't mean that the ball hit the window before the window broke.

But you claim that you can be caused to go to a restaurant by a friend's recommendation, if the restaurant requires a tie, your putting on of the tie is caused by your future entry to the restaurant.

Why do you say that? My putting on my tie is caused by my wanting to be admitted into the restaurant.

Admittance requires a tie, therefore admittance is the cause of wearing the tie. A tie doesn't imply admittance, admittance implies a tie.

Despite this being critical and hypocritical of the word cause and Kants law of causality itself i find it an interesting concept.
It is as humans natural to look for a cause, however what if the cause can come after the event. People often find themself questioning how something came to be without something before it to the point of a question impossible to answer unless accepting something simply appeared and then a process followed. Well a way of accepting something simply appeared is by accepting the cause has not happened yet and that the cause will happen after. Maybe in years to come we will experience the cause of the big bang theory or the cause of god and all will be explained.
I accept this is highly illogical and full of many flaws but i just found it an interesting and ultimately fun idea to question.

[enter criticism below ]