> The way I’m understanding your framing is that it’s not that there’s no causality, but we have events that are always correlated but causality is impossible t

> The way I’m understanding your framing is that it’s not that there’s no causality, but we have events that are always correlated but causality is impossible to determine due to quantum effects. Not just due to quantum effects; due to the fact that the time ordering of the events is not invariant; it's different in different frames. The quantum effects come in because without them the correlations would not be there and there would be nothing counterintuitive to explain. > there are multiple causal orderings In the sense that the time ordering of the events is not invariant, yes, you can say that. But relativity says that no actual physics can depend on something that's not invariant and depends on your choice of reference frame, so really it would be better to say that there is no ordering; the ordering is undefined and can't play a role in anything. > and they are all valid due to superposition No, superposition does not play a role here. We're talking about measurement results; there is no superposition of those. For example, Alice drops the plate and Bob burns himself. There's no superposition there, just two results that always occur together, and classical physics can't explain why. Quantum mechanics can, and its explanation implies that there is some connection between the two events, but if it's a causal connection, it must be one that can "work" in either order, so to speak--or more precisely, that doesn't have to "know" anything about ordering to work.