It’s neither causality nor correlation: it’s subjunctive dependence, of which causality is a special case. Since your counterpart is implementing the same decision procedure as you, making decision X in situation Y means your counterpart does X in Y too.
(First, a correction: I said it’s neither causality nor correlation, but it is of course correlation; it’s just stronger than that.)
I’d say yes, but I haven’t thought much about control yet. If I cooperate, so does my twin. If, counterfactually, I defected instead, then my twin would also have defected. I’d see that as control, but it depends on your definition I guess.
It’s neither causality nor correlation: it’s subjunctive dependence, of which causality is a special case. Since your counterpart is implementing the same decision procedure as you, making decision X in situation Y means your counterpart does X in Y too.
So is subjunctive dependence control?
(First, a correction: I said it’s neither causality nor correlation, but it is of course correlation; it’s just stronger than that.)
I’d say yes, but I haven’t thought much about control yet. If I cooperate, so does my twin. If, counterfactually, I defected instead, then my twin would also have defected. I’d see that as control, but it depends on your definition I guess.
You and your twin would be synchronised. It’s literally synchronicity, an acausal connecting principal.
Yes, it’s acausal. No disagreement there!