In every instance of A and B (A and B always occur when either occurs), A always comes before B.
In such cases, it can be inferred that A causes (predicts) B.
Does a single instance of B coming before A discredit this?
Consider the alleged theoretical reason against information traveling faster than the speed of light - causality. Consider that in every instance of A and B, that A comes before B, and then based on this you conclude that A causes B. That is, that A PREDICTS B. But if in one instance B happens before A, there IS a case where B comes before A. Is this sufficient to say that causality has not been established? If so, why is it necessary for A to always come before B in order to say A causes B? By what PROOF does A always have to precede B in every instance in order to establish causality? Is it sufficient to say that, in all instances of A and B, that A almost always has to come before B, to infer causality? Is it established that B can never come before A?
In terms of faster than light travel, A is the information about the launch, travelling at the speed of light, arriving at point X. B is the arrival of the space craft at X. The theory is that A HAS to occur before B, or the basic inviolate tenants of causality are breached. My ultimate question is, 'is there any proof in statistics that supports this'?