The Art and Science of Cause and Effect (1996)

This lecture has multiple parts; to see the rest, click on the "Continue with Part..." link at the bottom of each page, or:

Part 1b: http://singapore.cs.ucla.edu/LECTURE/lecture_sec1b.htm

Part 2: http://singapore.cs.ucla.edu/LECTURE/lecture_sec2.htm

Part 3: http://singapore.cs.ucla.edu/LECTURE/lecture_sec3.htm

"Implies" is the closest approximation to cause and effect in logic and statistics: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html

Now, cause and effect relationship is directed and may have something to do with the arrow of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

So if we capture breaking of class with high speed camera, the laws of physics continue to remain consistent when the video is played in reverse, but we know the arrow of time is one-way and it is impossible practically for shattered pieces to combine backwards. In most of the statistical studies, only the observations are captured but the flow of information through the entire system that resulted in those observations is never tracked. That flow is directly connected to arrow of time and can give us idea about cause and effect which observations alone are insufficient to provide.

So I wonder why the author of the article did not mention entropy and arrow of time while discussing causal and causality all the time (no pun intended).

The nature of causality is one of the most fundamental mysteries of the universe. Does it exclusively boil down to logical inference, and/or to the absence of logical contradiction? What’s its relation to time, exactly?

“Slide 17: Galilean equation d=t^2”

I liked this article. But Slide 17 and 18 suggests that Galileo used equations. But this is not the case. I looked at the Discorsi again and there isn’t one single equation in it. Galileo works with geometry and proportions.

So, when Galileo published his book, “barely 50 years after the introduction of algebraic notation by Vieta” algebra was NOT the “universal language of science.” Anyway, this is a nitpick, it does not influence his argument.

Also, d=t^2 is NOT "Galielean equation", he means proportionality. d is proportional to t^2, but in equation form it is written as, d=1/2at2.