The Requirement of the Past Might Not Be Necessity

If it was possible for a cause to come after the effect, would we say that the past is necessary? Would we say that there's no use crying over spilled milk? I actually doubt it. You could say, you kno, i as not sure. But that suggests that the necessity of the past might not be necessity. That's just about time, but its about the order of causation, which comes fom ther effect. And am so and and the principle that a cause must come before its effect, it's not actually necessity. Ah, this whole argument takes for granted that we're talking about necessity. The logic of time is full of confusions...i don't think