Does it even make sense to say "won't", or for that matter bring up anthropic considerations, in reference to causality violation?
This is a serious question, I don't know the answer.
Does it even make sense to say "won't" [...] in reference to causality violation?
Yes. (Leave out the anthropics, when that makes sense to bring up is complicated.)
Most of the reason for saying:
If there are ways to violate causality they are likely restrictive enough that we can't use them to violate causality prior to when we knew about the methods (roughly).
... are somewhat related to "causality doesn't appear to be violated". If (counterfactually) causality can be violated then it seems like it probably hasn't happened yet. Thi...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1
http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2169
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3027056
Perhaps the end of the era of the light cone and beginning of the era of the neutrino cone? I'd be curious to see your probability estimates for whether this theory pans out. Or other crackpot hypotheses to explain the results.