Of course, it doesn’t follow that we have to factor out logical uncertainty as a causal node that works like every other causal node
Is there some reason not to treat logical stuff as normal causal nodes? Does that cause us actual trouble, or is it just a bit confusing sometimes?
In causal models, we can have A → B, E → A, E → ~B. Logical uncertainty does not seem offhand to have the same structure as causal uncertainty.
You seem to be confusing the causal arrow with the logical arrow. As endoself points out here proofs logically imply their theorems, but a theorem causes its proof.
Is there some reason not to treat logical stuff as normal causal nodes? Does that cause us actual trouble, or is it just a bit confusing sometimes?
In causal models, we can have A → B, E → A, E → ~B. Logical uncertainty does not seem offhand to have the same structure as causal uncertainty.
You seem to be confusing the causal arrow with the logical arrow. As endoself points out here proofs logically imply their theorems, but a theorem causes its proof.