Reverse entropy, reverse causality and physical laws I do not have any scientific education and I am far away from understanding relativity, quantum mechanics and such.
I am just wondering about entropy, causality and if we could reverse these in a thought experiment without violating the physical laws of the "universe".
Is it possible to look at the "universe" disregarding our perception of the arrow of time and assume that entropy, causality, laws of thermodynamics are relative without violating the laws of physics?
Could we assume that the laws of nature such as entropy and causality are reversed? Eg. the arrow of time is relative and entropy increases over time, cause and effect are reversed - the universe didnt "start" with the big bang, but rather started as a system in a state of high entropy?
Do some laws of physics forbid to think of the universe in such a model?
Im aware this might appear like a stupid question and i dont expect huge detailed answers, but if someone could give me a link to some research or thought experiment that goes this direction?
 A: How do you distinguish "reverse causality" from "ordinary causality"? That is, if you say X is the cause of Y, and Y (at some previous time) is the effect, how do you prevent me from simply redesignating Y as actually the cause of X, and redesignating X as the effect (since it happens after Y)? 
Even in some sort of "looped causality" situation (where people imagine sending the lottery numbers back in time, for example, and then moving forward in time with them), we would always experience the effects (of winning the lottery) before their causes (the sending of the numbers back), so the future would be set in iron (since the effect, having already occurred, would require its cause to later be consummated, and new effects could not be introduced into the past, because we would have seen them already and they would already have had their effect).
Indeed, winning the lottery and then feeding those numbers into the machine after the win in order to "send them back", would just appear as a quaint eccentricity - it would not be clear whether you were causing the win that had already occurred, or doing nothing at all and expressing a disturbance of mind!
If you think these things through rigorously, you realise that you're abandoning any known laws of nature as we know them. That's not to say sci-fi never became science, but it's pointless asking scientists what they think about sci-fi (in terms of today's science, and in their capacity as scientific experts, rather than as artistic or literary critics).
