Seem to. But in the local frame in which the event happens, causality's sequence is never violated.
In the next place, if one believes in strict causality, one soon finds himself sliding down the slippery slope of determinism. I know this because I do and am.
Yes. But I hold out free will as a grand exception. I can't explain it. It just is.
Finally, several modern experiments have indicated that our notion of 'causality' is at best a rough-and-ready heuristic. For example, the 'quantum eraser' and similar experiments which apparently show that the past can be edited by events in the present.
Well, if you're going to mention QM while I'm peacefully thinking of causality and determinism, you're going to ruin my well-ordered day.
I would like to believe in free will. I really would. But when I translate claims of having free will into English, I get:
"My outputs are not functions of my inputs."
"Very well, then--what are they functions of?"
Cosmic rays? Heisenberg uncertainty? In any case there is a cause, and a random robot is still a robot.
Note that unpredictability is not the same as undeterminism; i.e., unpredictability is a statement about human limitations; the orbits of the planets were unpredictable until Ptolemy, Kepler, Copernicus, et al. But they were still deterministic!
--Boris