> Law of physics implies a casual relationship in nature
This is simply wrong. That is not what the term 'law' means in physics.
This is simply wrong. That is not what the term 'law' means in physics.
Scientists will state that B happens BECAUSE of A, when A is thought to be a necessary condition for B. That's the causal implication.
Historically, there has been a multitude of ideas and phenomena that have been labeled as causation. Aristotle, back then, identified four notions of causation, and the modern reader immediately will feel that some of these notions themselves are still too general. When you make a claim like "nature obeys causality", you need to be more precise in what you refer to by nature and causality, else your claim is far too ill-defined to mean much of anyting.