Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, it isn't. After doing a bit of reserch on the matter I found out that causality is an axiom of Quantum theory (attempt to bring together QM and GR).

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709026
Quote : Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality - both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion - while respecting relativistic causality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451
Quote : Quantum theory can be derived from purely informational principles. Five elementary axioms-causality, perfect distinguishability, ideal compression, local distinguishability, and pure conditioning.

https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt 
Quote: physics has given up causality is entirely unfounded. Modem physics, it is true, has given up or modified many traditional ideas ; but it would cease to be a science if it had given up the search for the causes of phenomena. (The author is Max Born, the famous German physicist)

So no, causality is not a testable hypothesis, but an axiom embedded in the framework of all modern physical theories.

Don't get stuck on the word here. Read deeper and find out what they mean by the word 'causality' in these papers. You will find that it is NOT the same as what you think of as causality.

For example, relativistic causality is the claim that events that are separated by a timelike relativistic separation are uncorrelated. it is a question about probabilities and correlations, not in necessary conditions. Similarly, in your second paper, the notion of causality is that there is no 'signal' from the future. Again, this is ultimately saying there is no correlation between events that are timelike separated.

Finally, the notion of causality in your third article is dependent on the existence of natural laws. So, once again, it does not address the fact that ALL causality, such as it exists, is within the universe and a consequence of the natural laws. it does NOT support your claim for causality outside of the universe, nor even the claim of simultaneous causality within the universe.

Finally, the fact that the quantum relativistic version of causality is an 'assumption' is precisely what makes it part of a testable theory. it is NOT a law of thought, but an aspect of the proposed scientific theory: an aspect to be tested (are events correlated or not?) and not something required to even think about natural laws.

In other words, you are quoting articles you clearly do not comprehend simply because they have a couple of phrases that seem to align with your position. if they are read more closely, they directly contradict your basic claims.

Hey, Poly a Theist of all people is accusing you of making stuff up