What would it even mean to say that the universe is a fabric of cause and effect “in the Pearlian sense of causality”? Pearl originated a new method of causal analysis, not a new concept of causation.
In so far as Pearl has a theory of causation, it is a manipulability theory. Sure, Pearl provides a method for drawing causal conclusions from data about correlations. But what he means by causation is cashed out in terms of how interventions on one variable affect another variable, not just in terms of correlations. Correlations are indicators of causation for Pearl, but they don’t constitute causation. The structural equations Pearl uses to represent causal relationships are meant to capture not just de facto mathematical relations between variables, they support counterfactuals. They tell us what would happen to the variable on the left hand side of the equation if the variables on the right hand side were manipulated.
See section 6 of the SEP article for connections between the manipulability theory of causation and Pearl’s formalism.
But first you need to know what causality is. While the general idea that “causality is about manipulations” was around before Pearl, he certainly popularized it, and his causal bayesian networks and the do-calculus made it something that could be studied mathematically.
What would it even mean to say that the universe is a fabric of cause and effect “in the Pearlian sense of causality”? Pearl originated a new method of causal analysis, not a new concept of causation.
I guess it means causation as manipulability, as opposed to e.g. causation as contrafactual?
How is causation as manipulability “Pearlian”? Pearl’s whole point is that it’s possible to determine causality without manipulating.
In so far as Pearl has a theory of causation, it is a manipulability theory. Sure, Pearl provides a method for drawing causal conclusions from data about correlations. But what he means by causation is cashed out in terms of how interventions on one variable affect another variable, not just in terms of correlations. Correlations are indicators of causation for Pearl, but they don’t constitute causation. The structural equations Pearl uses to represent causal relationships are meant to capture not just de facto mathematical relations between variables, they support counterfactuals. They tell us what would happen to the variable on the left hand side of the equation if the variables on the right hand side were manipulated.
See section 6 of the SEP article for connections between the manipulability theory of causation and Pearl’s formalism.
But first you need to know what causality is. While the general idea that “causality is about manipulations” was around before Pearl, he certainly popularized it, and his causal bayesian networks and the do-calculus made it something that could be studied mathematically.