Imagine the world as fully deterministic. Then there is no “real causality” to speak of, everything is set in stone, and there is no difference between cause and effect.
If causation is understood in terms of counterfactuals — X would have happened if Y had happened — then there is still a difference between cause and effect. A model of a world implies models of hypothetical, counterfactual worlds.
If causation is understood in terms of counterfactuals — X would have happened if Y had happened — then there is still a difference between cause and effect. A model of a world implies models of hypothetical, counterfactual worlds.
Yes, indeed, in terms of counterfactuals there is. But counterfactuals are in the map (well, to be fair a map is a tiny part of the territory in the agent’s brain). Which was my original point: causality is in the map.
The map and the territory are not separate magisteria. A good map, or model, fits the territory: it allows one to make accurate and reliable predictions. That is what it is, for a map to be a good one. The things in the map have their counterparts in the world. The goodness of fit of a map to the world is a fact about the world. Causation is there also, just as much as pianos, and gravitation, and quarks.
A good map, or model, fits the territory: it allows one to make accurate and reliable predictions. That is what it is, for a map to be a good one.
is not obviously equivalent to this claim:-
The things in the map have their counterparts in the world.
Causation is there also, just as much as pianos, and gravitation, and quarks.
If you accept usefulness in the map as the sole criterion for existence in the territory, then causation is there, along with much else, including much that you do not believe in ,and much that is mutually contradictory.
If causation is understood in terms of counterfactuals — X would have happened if Y had happened — then there is still a difference between cause and effect. A model of a world implies models of hypothetical, counterfactual worlds.
Yes, indeed, in terms of counterfactuals there is. But counterfactuals are in the map (well, to be fair a map is a tiny part of the territory in the agent’s brain). Which was my original point: causality is in the map.
The map and the territory are not separate magisteria. A good map, or model, fits the territory: it allows one to make accurate and reliable predictions. That is what it is, for a map to be a good one. The things in the map have their counterparts in the world. The goodness of fit of a map to the world is a fact about the world. Causation is there also, just as much as pianos, and gravitation, and quarks.
This claim..
is not obviously equivalent to this claim:-
If you accept usefulness in the map as the sole criterion for existence in the territory, then causation is there, along with much else, including much that you do not believe in ,and much that is mutually contradictory.