what we call 'causality' can be nothing other than the constant conjunction of the idea of the cause with that of the effect. we believe in cause and effect but can never know that an effect is actually caused, merely that stimulus B is repeatedly paired with stimulus A.
we're convinced, for example, that the sun will rise tomorrow. we have an entire worldview that shows why this is the case, and for hundreds of years it hasn't gone wrong. but there is no way to PROVE that the sun will rise. it's simply quite probable given all of our past observations. natural laws, though, are DESCRIPTIONS of reality as we understand it, not actually the hardcoded principles of the universe. causality seems to be wired in to us--we do induction in the real world not because we can logically prove it (unlike a priori mathematical induction), but because it makes sense to us.
at first i was thinking that the machines were deterministic consciousnesses, and thus had greater reason to "believe" in causality. but it's quite possible that's not the case. still, it would have been nice to see Neo take up Hume's argument and then the French dude to take up Zubiri's critique and duke it out in a civilized manner...
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!