This reminds me of Aristotle's Metaphysics and the cosmological argument derived from his meditation on causality - the idea that if C was caused by B, and B was caused by A ... and so on ... eventually there must be an 'unmoved mover'. I'm likely missing some nuance, but it almost seems like Pearl's formulation is a solipsistic metaphysics where human consciousness is the unmoved mover - what do you think?
I don't think Pearl is solipsistic. He actually conceives of causation as a tool of human reasoning rather than a metaphysical property. The point is that causation is introduced by the presence of action, which differs significantly from how statistical models emerge, at least on a macro scale.
As for the unmoved mover, the Greeks in particular were quite uncomfortable with infinity and there remain a few finitists in recent times (e.g. Brouwer in math). Even theologically, the unmoved mover is not a particularly useful idea, since theological models tend to imply a responsive deity -- and response is movement in this sense. The simplest way to deal with the problem of infinite regress is to suggest that there exist effects without temporally precedent causes, something that would trouble Aristotle more than infinity. Either that, or introduce time loops so that there could be causal cycles .... maybe that would be more fun
This reminds me of Aristotle's Metaphysics and the cosmological argument derived from his meditation on causality - the idea that if C was caused by B, and B was caused by A ... and so on ... eventually there must be an 'unmoved mover'. I'm likely missing some nuance, but it almost seems like Pearl's formulation is a solipsistic metaphysics where human consciousness is the unmoved mover - what do you think?
I don't think Pearl is solipsistic. He actually conceives of causation as a tool of human reasoning rather than a metaphysical property. The point is that causation is introduced by the presence of action, which differs significantly from how statistical models emerge, at least on a macro scale.
As for the unmoved mover, the Greeks in particular were quite uncomfortable with infinity and there remain a few finitists in recent times (e.g. Brouwer in math). Even theologically, the unmoved mover is not a particularly useful idea, since theological models tend to imply a responsive deity -- and response is movement in this sense. The simplest way to deal with the problem of infinite regress is to suggest that there exist effects without temporally precedent causes, something that would trouble Aristotle more than infinity. Either that, or introduce time loops so that there could be causal cycles .... maybe that would be more fun