More detail on the non-causality poll...

I'd expect adherents to quantum mechanics to choose "sometimes".

Since QM appears to introduce uncertainty (probabilistic) in place of causality (deterministic) (i.e., it moves from certainty toward randomness), I don't see why a deeper dive couldn't move entirely to randomness (non-causality).

Non-causality appears to be a generalization of nonlocality (or perhaps complimentary to it).

Because of the results of the Bell test experiments, there appears to be renewed interest in explicit theories of nonlocality (e.g., extentions of de Broglie–Bohm theory) to make QM more palatable.

I think the development of a construct for a non-causal extent with causality emergent at macroscopic levels (or emergent at the quantum/macro interface) could serve the same purpose, but I haven't been able to find anything on that.

*** Does anybody know of anyone who is working on that? ***

Here are some more hashtags to cast the net a bit wider. (feel free to comment even after the poll is complete):

#einstein #bohr #causality #spacetime #belltest #epr #paradox #light
#atom #atoms #electron #proton #quark #neutron #electricity #stem #technology
#cern #matter #energy #higgs #particle #lorentz #simultaneity #lightcone
#physics #QM #relativity #gravity #time #space

Not sure if folks are not commenting because they think I'm full of shit or because more exposition is required...

Assuming the latter:

What I refer to as 'non-causality' is the temporal component that is complementary to spatial non-locality. The former referring to causality of events in time (cause precedes effect), whereas the latter refers to causality in space (the effect of an interaction is spatially "next to" the cause).

If the concept of spacetime holds up within such a non-causal extent, then any treatment of explicit non-locality necessarily implies temporal non-causality.

Does that make more sense?

@Pat idk much about this shit, but people smarter than me have postulated that the so-called speed of light may be better termed the speed of causality, because it better describes what the c in e=mc^2 actually represents.
Though I suppose my interpretation of "causality" in this sense may be off.