Even if this isn’t surprising, as intuitively people won’t attribute a hurricane to a butterfly, I would argue that causally attributing World War I to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand follows the same fallacy.
If “cause” means that given A, B must necessarily happen , irrespective if other factors , then the butterfly wing and the assassination aren’t causes. But there are other was of defining “cause” where they are!
But out in the messy “real world,” abundant with impurities of all kinds, supercooled water would not survive long anyhow — if not this impurity, then another would have seeded the transition a moment late
If “cause” means that given A, B must necessarily happen , and nothing but A could bring about B , then the impurity wasn’t the cause. But there are other was of defining “cause” where it was!
If “cause” means that given A, B must necessarily happen , irrespective if other factors , then the butterfly wing and the assassination aren’t causes. But there are other was of defining “cause” where they are!
If “cause” means that given A, B must necessarily happen , and nothing but A could bring about B , then the impurity wasn’t the cause. But there are other was of defining “cause” where it was!