Well, the partitioning of time and space (or of experience, if you prefer) into “events” is already a modeling choice. The underlying reality seems not to care—it’s just a configuration of elementary particles which changes according to simple rules (but complicated state—there’s really quite a lot of it).
So, yes, a modeler can attribute whatever they like to whatever they like. Depending on the fidelity of the model, they may even be able to predict future abstractions over configurations (or localized configurations) with a limited precision.
Whether you call this “causality” or just “consistency” or “correlation” is up to you.
Well, the partitioning of time and space (or of experience, if you prefer) into “events” is already a modeling choice. The underlying reality seems not to care—it’s just a configuration of elementary particles which changes according to simple rules (but complicated state—there’s really quite a lot of it).
So, yes, a modeler can attribute whatever they like to whatever they like. Depending on the fidelity of the model, they may even be able to predict future abstractions over configurations (or localized configurations) with a limited precision.
Whether you call this “causality” or just “consistency” or “correlation” is up to you.