Replies

Re: "But causality is always a one-way street, flowing from cause to consequence. I have no support on this in any of the physics literature, nor do any of the truly knowledgeable people on this board agree with me, but I regard causality as the principle "arrow" of time, and the only one which gives time what we perceive as its direction -- from past to future."

This sounds profoundly sensible to me. Hence, "elegant". Time is progression/process of the material entity. It is easier to visualize in biological processes, but non-living matter also has progression. The progression is due to causality: something is happening to/within the entity because of some causal action. Hence, time as we know it is continually resulting from causality. Yes, I think you have it. But then who am I? ;)

This is the problem Einstein and Schroedinger (there were a few others) had with the prevailing concensus of the interpretation to apply to QM. It was doing away with causality: the link between cause and effect. Quantum actions were not "caused" but "randomly occurring" fluctuations and etc. The free lunch business . . . Well, they never accepted that, even if they did not "win" the argument. So Einstein and Schroedinger would approve of getting casuality firmly back into the picture. Maybe your theory is the way it will happen . . .

Besides, even if all practicing physicists don't agree, isn't this more in the realm, at present anyway, of metaphysics, i.e. interpretation of the physics? And the interpretation is not the physics. The physics, the equations, work, whatever you say about them?