With regards to the concept of a dynamic causal route, Hitchcock defines actual or token causation regarding the pursuing the terminology:
(10) If c and e are distinct actual events and X and Z are binary variables whose values represent the occurrence and non-occurrence of these events, then c is a cause of e if and only if there is an active causal route from X to Z in an appropriate causal model
Lewis resorts to quasi-dependence because the smashing of your bottles (e) doesn’t counterfactually confidence Suzys place (c), because of what can possess taken place got she not tossed (viz, Billys rock might have shattered brand new bottles rather)
As mentioned, (10) doesnt handle cases of symmetric overdetermination because the when Suzy and you can Billy both put their stones alone, for each place is sufficient into the bottles to split, and you may each other stones hit the package very none throw preempts the fresh new almost every other, as the neither place is found on a dynamic route once the defined for the (9). To manage for example instances, Hitchcock weakens (10) from the substitution the newest ‘active route when you look at the (10) on the idea of a beneficial weakly effective route (2001: 290). Many suggestion right here that there surely is a good weakly productive station between X and Z only when Z counterfactually utilizes X under the cold of some you are able to, not necessarily genuine, values of variables that are not towards route out-of X so you’re able to Z. Naturally, to recover counterfactual reliance ranging from Suzys throw together with shattering we keep fixed BT = 0: got Suzy perhaps not thrown regarding design in which Billy doesnt put, the brand new bottles do not have shattered. Furthermore having Billys place.
The basic strategy deployed right here to manage both preemption and you can shaped overdetermination contains a glaring similarity in order to Lewiss quasi-dependence substitute for the fresh new later preemption state. Pittsburgh hookup sites e quasi-hinges on c, yet not, because of the fact you to into the a potential business towards the same legislation where the intrinsic reputation of the process out of c so you’re able to e is the identical but Billy doesnt toss, there is the necessary counterfactual dependency. ‘Freezing parameters which aren’t inherent with the c-age procedure on its genuine values (in the late preemption circumstances) age.g. freezing BH at 0 converts more or less the same key. The brand new key difference would be the fact Lewiss service relates to attractive to the newest information regarding a perfectly typical counterfactual (“In the event the Suzy hadn’t thrown, …”) within a possible industry in which some genuine situations (age.g. Billys strike) never exist, once the architectural-equations solution relates to popular with the case away from a beneficial counterfactual which have another sorts of antecedent (“Got Suzy perhaps not thrown and Billys rock however maybe not struck, …”). Hitchcock phone calls these types of ‘explicitly nonforetracking (ENF) counterfactuals. (Also to have symmetrical overdetermination, where we ‘freeze BT at 0 this time around a low-real well worth to recuperate counterfactual dependence between Suzys put and also the shattering.)
5.2 SEF and Counterfactuals
Anyone who has pursued the latest SEF way of taking a diagnosis out of ‘real causation which is, the new causal relation anywhere between genuine, sorts of occurrences have acquired very little to state in regards to the semantics of the counterfactuals you to definitely underpin SEF. Certain authors (elizabeth.g. Hitchcock 2001) clearly and some writers implicitly guess a broadly Lewisian approach to counterfactuals, so that the structural equations is representations off interactions off activities from the counterfactual dependence because the discussed more than whoever realities standards is actually generally Lewisian.