Causality explains nothing. One explains things in terms of causality. It is closer to mathematics or logic than it is to universal time or an absolute rest frame.
In retrospect, yes. Prior to relativity, however, absolute time was a given. You didn't explain absolute time, you explained things in terms of absolute time. A better theory came along that eliminated the notion of absolute time by explaining the observed universe better.
My only point is that what we take as givens can be changed if a model with greater explanatory power comes along. I am not at this point convinced that the direction of the arrow of time is beyond challenge by science. By no means am I convinced that the arrow of time is mutable, either.
Causality is an observed feature of the universe, not a logical construct. If we analogize to mathematics, it's an axiom, not a theorem. To continue the analogy, consider Euclid's geometry. By changing an axiom, several other, equally valid, geometries resulted. I see physics as being capable of doing the same thing in the opposite order: a new domain is explored, which doesn't fit into our system of explanations. This could then force a reinterpretation of one of the axioms as it applies to the new domain.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise, of course. But all the arguments I've seen so far to defend causality do one of two things: make the assumption that if A causes B, then it is impossible for B to precede A. Which is intuitively appealing, but logically fallacious; it begs the question.
Alternatively, they rely upon the assertion that A cannot imply B while B simultaneously implies ~A. Which is obviously correct within the strictures of logic, but less obvious in light of the muddiness of reality. A and ~A can coexist at different points in spacetime, obviously. If the hypothesis of "higher" dimensions turns out to be accurate, could A and ~A coexist at the same coordinates in four dimensions, but displaced in another one?
I can't stress enough that I do not actually believe this to be the case. However, I'm not convinced that it can be excluded with certainty.