Thank you for your comments.
The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics in not an artifact of measurement, but an intrinsic aspect of the model. As you say, measurement is simply another interaction. The unique characteristic of measurement as distinct from other interactions is that it is ultimately connected, in a quantitative way, to the interactions that form our consciousness, whereas other interactions that are not observed or perceived are not. But that difference does not otherwise effect the character of the interaction with regard to the model.
And yes, it is frustrating that that probabilistic nature of QM -- that more relaxed causality -- shows up when we move from the macro world toward the more fundamental. Sometimes when something frustrates me, I'll just lean into it. That tactic actually helps sometimes. I thought I'd try that with this problem, i.e., lean into the idea that uncertainties arise or increase when moving from the macro world to the more fundamental and think about what would happen if you just assumed that that increasingly randomizing effect would continue as you continued to move toward more fundamental models. Maybe it doesn't become completely random -- completely non-causal -- as I proposed, but just becomes even more probabilistic than our current model.
>Can science, or any organized thought for that matter, be done without a temporal order of events? If causality is macroscopic only, how did we manage to still make sense of the microscopic world if there is no temporal pattern to begin with?
Our thoughts and models and math are all macroscopic and happen within the context of this causal, macroscopic world and yes, "thought" could not happen without time and causality (as far as I am aware of at the moment :). But that doesn't stop us from being able to think about things like randomness and non-causality. I mean, statistics (a part of math, which is perhaps the most certain of constructs) is what we use to think about randomness, among other things. So, although it wouldn't be easy to conceptualize, I don't see why we couldn't model a non-causal extent, perhaps as a more fundamental aspect of QM. I already have ideas as to how causality could emerge from a non-causal extent to allow for the probabilities of quantum mechanics to emerge from that randomness, but I wanted to see if someone else had already explored that before I went any further. It's unlikely that I'm the first one to think about that, but so far I haven't been able to find anything in the literature about it.
>Why does "any treatment of explicit non-locality necessarily implies temporal non-causality"? Space and time are still not perfectly symmetric in relativity.
If by "symmetric" you're referring to an antisymmetric tensor, I don't have the mathematical understanding to even begin to consider or discuss that. Of course spacetime is physically symmetrical, but I don't think that's what you meant. And yes, what I said there was incorrect. Good catch. Explicit nonlocality does NOT necessarily imply temporal non-causality. But a probabilistic nonlocality might imply a probabilistic temporal non-causality, especially if the individual probabilities of a non-local interaction are themselves nonlocal, i.e., if the individual probabilities are spatially non-contiguous. But I don't think we have observed that phenomenon yet.
