# Understanding Causation Through Correlation: A Physicist's Insight
Written on
Chapter 1: The Nature of Causation
We've all encountered the saying, "correlation does not imply causation," yet discussions about the essence of causation itself are often scarce. Surprisingly, fundamental physics offers an intriguing perspective: causation ultimately hinges on correlation.
Imagine a rainy day in the city, with everyone carrying umbrellas. Did the rain trigger the umbrellas to open, or did the umbrellas somehow cause the rain? While there's a strong correlation between rain and umbrellas, only one scenario is valid: the rain prompted people to use their umbrellas. This conclusion feels instinctively right. In fact, humans are generally adept at making causal judgments, which are essential for predicting future events and rationalizing our actions.
Beyond daily experiences, our advancement as a society relies heavily on distinguishing causes from effects. From concrete issues like "Did human actions contribute to climate change?" to abstract questions like "What initiated the Universe's existence?", understanding causation is vital for both science and society.
If causation seems so intuitive, you might wonder if a straightforward definition exists. Unfortunately, it appears that our conventional understanding of causation is not a fundamental aspect of nature. Instead, it emerges from complex interactions, often influenced by biases. Remarkably, the clearest way to define causation appears to be through a specific type of correlation.
Curious? Let’s delve deeper.
The first video titled "What is a 'Cause,' and Why Does it Happen Before the Effect?" by Carlo Rovelli provides a fascinating exploration into the concept of causation and its relationship with correlation.
Section 1.1: The Role of Controlled Experiments
Causation is typically established through controlled experiments. Statistics offers various methods to differentiate causes from effects, known as causal inference. This process relies on conducting controlled experiments where all variables that could influence an outcome are carefully managed to observe changes in results. But why does this approach work?
It relates back to the laws of nature, which are governed by precise mathematical equations. These equations suggest that the present state can predict a consistent future. Controlled experiments utilize this principle; the variables are controlled at present, while the outcomes are observed in the future.
However, equations alone cannot definitively separate causes from effects. For instance, consider the equation ( 2 = 1 + 1 ). If we declare 1 as the cause and 2 as the effect, we could just as easily rewrite it as ( 1 = 2 - 1 ), flipping the causal relationship. Thus, equations merely express relationships, which can often be interpreted in multiple ways. To effectively differentiate causes from effects, additional factors must be considered.
Going further, these ambiguities extend to fundamental laws of nature. To resolve these complexities, we must accept that causation is not a fundamental principle, but a sophisticated phenomenon influenced by human biases.
Section 1.2: The Causal Dilemma
To illustrate the challenges of defining causation, let’s consider a game of billiards. When I strike the white ball, it collides with the black ball, which then rolls into a pocket. What caused the black ball to go into the pocket? Many might instinctively say it was the white ball's impact.
But from the black ball's perspective, it could seem that it was the force of the black ball charging toward the white ball that caused it to move. This perspective shift raises questions about who is truly in control. Outside the billiard context, defining control becomes even more ambiguous.
Why is this significant? The universe operates similarly, with countless particles colliding and interacting. Every interaction presents the same causal question: what truly caused the event? Should we consider all involved parties—the player, the table, even the air molecules in the room? Drawing the line for causation becomes increasingly complex, leading to the question: where do we stop when attributing causality to an event?
These dilemmas highlight the need for clarity in distinguishing between causes and effects. To tackle this, we must define what constitutes a cause, and how to effectively limit the scope of our analysis.
Chapter 2: The Physics of Causation
The second video, "Correlation vs Causation," provides additional insights into the nuances of these concepts and their implications in scientific discourse.
The complexity of causation leads us to explore the relationship between causality and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein’s theory elucidates that for one event to influence another, there must be a messenger, and this messenger cannot exceed the speed of light. This fundamental connection enables us to consider two events as causally linked.
In practical terms, this means that when examining earthly events, we can ignore occurrences happening in distant galaxies. This observation fundamentally alters our understanding of causation, emphasizing that all interactions are mediated by connections that respect the cosmic speed limit.
In summary, to define causation effectively, we recognize that physical laws yield correlations rather than direct causation. The structure of our universe, as explained by Einstein, gives rise to a systematic understanding of causality, while a consistent arrow of time helps delineate past events as causes and future events as effects.
As we continue to explore these ideas, we see that causation is more than just a simple concept; it is an intricate tapestry woven from the fabric of our universe and human perception.
In our next installment, we will dive into how specific correlations can lead to causation and the significant role human biases play in this process. Stay tuned for a deeper exploration of these profound topics in physics!