3 ms·
Even with that definition, you won't necessarily observe correlation between A and B. See the example used in the twitter thread I linked: > Imagine driving a
by rvilj 5y ago
Even with that definition, you won't necessarily observe correlation between A and B.
See the example used in the twitter thread I linked:
> Imagine driving a car, reaching a hill and pumping the gas as you begin to go up so that your speed is constant. The correlation between pressing on the gas and the speed of the car is zero but they're obviously causally related, it's that the agent is optimizing speed!
- djoldman 5y agoWell in that scenario, the only way your speed would be constant (assuming a constant angle on the hill) is if your engine thrust was constant. So "pumping" the gas just achieves a constant thrust. So your speed stays the same and the thrust stays the same. So there is perfect correlation and causation (by some definition of causation). But more to the point, there isn't a good definition of causation. If you use the "but for A, B would not occur" there are problems. Other definitions also have problems. This is a deep epistemological problem and I think not as simple as it may seem.