• A Son of Rosenthal
    26
    Hello!
    I am concerned with how to formalize some definitions of causation. In David Lewis' groundbreaking work entitled 'Causation', a definition is given as follows:
    c causes e iff if it were the case that it is not the case that c occurs, then it would be the case that it is not the case that e occurs. (tense can be ignored here)

    I think that so-called Lewisian analyses can be best understood as formalization of 'Ramsey-Lewis method'. It is articulated as follows:
    (∃x)(∃y)(x causes y iff if it were the case that it is not the case that x occurs, then it would be the case that it is not the case that y occurs.)
    The whole formulation can be Carnap sentence as:
    If (∃x)(∃y)(x causes y iff if it were the case that it is not the case that x occurs, then it would be the case that it is not the case that y occurs.), then c causes e iff it were the case that it is not the case that c occurs, then it would be the case that it is not the case that e occurs.

    I ask whether I am right about it here. Thanks!
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    I am not sure what you are trying to do here. Are you saying that "c causes e iff..." is a theory and the same sentence with x and y standing for c and e is its Ramsey sentence?
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    I am examining correct formalization of Lewis' counterfactual analysis of causation. Lewis gives a semi-formal analysis, a combination of schematic letters (e.g. c, e, ...) and English expressions (e.g. causes, ...). What I am looking for is a formal analysis of causation symbolized completely down to schema.
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    By formal analysis do you mean specifically the positivist approach of defining all theoretical terms through observable properties? I think it would be problematic to define counterfactuals this way. And that makes me think of a problem with this definition of causation:

    If c is not the case, then something else is the case, right? What could be the case then? And couldn't some alternate state of affairs result in the same effect? Suppose we see a red ball strike a yellow ball and then the yellow ball rolls into a pocket. We would normally say that the red ball striking the yellow ball (c) caused the latter to roll into a pocket (e). But what would be a counterfactual to that? Suppose that a blue ball struck the yellow ball instead of the red ball, with the same consequences. (c) is not the case, but (e) occurred anyway. Does this mean that (c) was not the cause of (e) after all? It seems that on this definition of causation either there is no multiple realizability of effects or there is no causation - either option is implausible.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    As Sophisticat points out, as soon as we start considering counterfactuals, we get into the devil of a mess. And counterfactuals is what's going on when we write 'if (something that we have observed to have happened) were not the case, then ....'

    A less troubled approach is to define cause in terms of agreed initial conditions and scientific theories. Try reading this for an approach that does it that way.
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    I am interested in logical forms of analyses. Or, I am interested in how to construct definitions in symbolic logic precisely.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    xCy = x causes y
    xRy = x is correlates with y
    xNy = x is correlated coincidentally with y

    1. xRy
    2. ~yCx
    3. ~(Ez)(zCx AND zCy)
    4. ~xNy

    Then

    xCy <-> 1 & 2 & 3 & 4

    :P
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    1. Rxy
    2. ~Cyx
    3. ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy)
    4. ~Nxy
    5. Show Cxy ↔ (Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy)
    6. Show Cxy → (Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy)
    7. Cxy A
    8. Show Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy
    9. Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy 1, 2, 3, 4, Add
    10. Show (Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy) → Cxy
    11. Rxy & ~Cyx & ~(∃z)(Czx & Czy) & ~Nxy A
    12. Show Cxy
    13. (∀z)~(Czx & Czy) 3, QN
    14. ~(Cxx & Cxy) 13, UI
    15. ~Cxx ∨ ~Cxy 14, DM
    INVALID
    TheMadFool, your argument is not valid as shown above.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    But I'm not making an argument. Perhaps the ''then'' misled you.

    I'm defining causation.
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    Ah, you defined causation by biconditional (or necessary and sufficient condition) ... I got it.
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    However, your analysis includes free variables x and y, which is not allowed in first-order predicate logic. Of course, if you used them as names, no troubles here.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k

    (Ex)(Ey)(xCy <-> xRy & ~yCx & ~(Ez)(zCx & zCy) & ~xNy)

    Thanks for pointing out the mistake. My logic is rusty. How's the above formulation
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Or...

    aCb <-> (aRb & ~bCa & ~(Ex)(xCa & xCb) & ~aNb)
  • A Son of Rosenthal
    26

    Two formulations are well-formed fomulae.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.