Obviously, I am familiar with your "quantum" argument, which is theoretical at best and therefore cannot be presented as a piece of absolute evidence...<quoted text>
Causality is not required for empiricism. For example, quantum mechanics is a thoroughly empirical science, but is not a causal theory.
More accurately, the ultimate standard for falsehood is our senses. We eliminate the falsehoods, require testability, and see what is left.
That is why we require observations to be repeatable by people with different biases and different ideas on how things 'should be'. Anything that doesn't produce *some* observational effect that could be detected in *some* way by *some* observer is irrelevant and not deserving the designation 'truth'.
You are back to your senses again, which I have already addressed in a previous post, so will leave that one for you to follow up.