Spatially separated events are time relative but .

[nitsuj]

A psychic informes me that a specific Sofie will marry me after he tells me this - A. Prompting me to get curious, contact a specific Sofie - B. Sofie proposes to me and we get married ( I fall in love over the phone) - C.

A is not connected to C?

If the time between A and C was a year (for you) then A is causally connected to all within a light year of A at the time of C, everything outside that distance at that moment is "elsewhere".

 

[Dale]

I guess we will find out. He did write: "is not transitive" instead of "not neccesarily".

That is correct, the relationship is not transitive. Here is a brief introduction about what it means for a relationship to be transitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

You are thinking of antitransitivity which is a stronger statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity

Causality is not transitive, but it is not antitransitive. I was not claiming antitransitivity.

If you are given only that A is causally connected to B and B is causally connected to C then you do not have enough information to determine if there is a causal connection between A and C. For instance, the causal connection could be that A caused B and B caused C, in which case A would be causally connected to C. But the causal connection could be that A was caused by B and C was caused by B, in which case A might not be causally connected to C.

This is relevant because it shows the problem with this argument:

if you at the same time take the view of causality being a fact since the beginning of universe, entailing that all events are by necessity causally connected to each other

This argument relies on causality being a transitive relationship. You are claiming that every event is causally connected to the big bang, and therefore causally connected to each other. But this only works if "causally connected" is a transitive relationship, which it is not.