I have only read through this once, so far. It is very difficult to understand. It seems what you are trying to show is a situation in which all the 'laws' of randomness are maintained, but their is intuitively something causal going on. The bigger problem is what this means for laws that imply causal mechanisms. Is this correct? Actually, writing this out has helped me understand the problem. I still think I have to read it once more time.
I have only read through this once, so far. It is very difficult to understand. It seems what you are trying to show is a situation in which all the 'laws' of randomness are maintained, but their is intuitively something causal going on. The bigger problem is what this means for laws that imply causal mechanisms. Is this correct? Actually, writing this out has helped me understand the problem. I still think I have to read it once more time.