I can imagine a universe in which the local ordering I observe doesn’t go as far forward or back as I thought, and the true everything-is-causes-and-effects structure is pushed one layer back to something completely hidden from me. I can imagine a universe in which I’ve falsely inferred an ordering which isn’t there, and getting confused by cycles in a graph that I thought was causal. But a universe with no causality at the lowest layer—I think causality is inherent in too many things, and that after subtracting those things there’s not enough option space left to make a universe out of.
In other words, causality is the invisible pink unicorn.
The text I quoted in the grandparent seems to be saying that even if the universe doesn’t contain causality, we can always postulate an external causality structure even if most of it can’t be observed.
In other words, causality is the invisible pink unicorn.
I don’t understand this reply at all, except as an indication that I didn’t communicate these concepts as well as I’d hoped.
The text I quoted in the grandparent seems to be saying that even if the universe doesn’t contain causality, we can always postulate an external causality structure even if most of it can’t be observed.