In fact I don't know if I'm supposed to say it here, but why do physicists care so much about casuality? It seems as if we are trying to impose something "logical" to us over nature...In fact mathematics don't need casuality in the first place to work, right? So what is so strongly suggesting to us that nature should be casual? For example, from what I understand so far, the Big Bang was not casual -it just happened-. Also a probabilistic view of nature is going against determinism and thus casuality as well [cause→result]. That's because a 'cause' event [itex]A[/itex] can give you the [itex]B_i [/itex] 'result' events...as an example of this I'm looking into path integral formalism, which actually takes the integral of every path, casually connected or not, to give the final result. I'm not really trying to hit casuality [apart from the misleading title which I can't change anymore], but see how it can be on par with what I mentioned above.