You know Alex,
The smart thing to do in philosophy is to reverse the normal expectations on issues. So, instead of saying, is there only one answer (common trend) to all these relationships?" you might say, "Is there only one answer, period?, and then what is the question?". That angle has been already studied (by Douglas Adams), the answer is 42 (see the Wikipedia entry for further details), question however yet unknown.
Or more generally on knowledge, one might ask:
1) What do we need to be able to do to say that we "understand" something? Different relationships are apparent at different scales -- subatomic / atomic / nano / macro (ordinary) / galactic / cosmic -- and although we think that we (occasionally) know a lot about some of these, history (as well as science) informs us that our knowledge is incomplete to various extents (even, for example, what most of the universe is made of!).
2) With (1) in mind, what definition can we assign to "cause → effect"? Why should we assume that because we can or cannot be sure of a cause → effect condition, that some less or more complex entity similarly can or can't?
3) What is the relationship between our sensory systems (and associated neural circuitry, including thought), measurement, and knowledge?
We frequently use technology to sample a further range of information, and search for unusual phenomena to study to extend our comprehension of the universe. But that is a consequence of perception being ordinarily limited in physical and temporal domains.
Wishing you well as you contemplate these deep issues!