An event e is said to causally depend on an event c if and only if e would occur if c were to occur and e would not occur if c were not to occur.
The article makes a point of articulating that causal dependence entails causation (if e causally depends on c, c is a cause of e) but not vice versa. It then defines a causal chain as a fine sequence of events c, d, e,… where d causally depends on c, e on d, and so on, before defining c to be a cause of e if and only if there exists a causal chain leading from c to e.
What I’m having trouble with is understanding how c can cause e according to the given definition without e causally depending on c. If there’s a causal chain from c to d to e, then d causally depends on c, and e causally depends on d, so if c were to not occur, d would not occur, and if d were to not occur, e would not occur. But doesn’t this directly entail that if c were to not occur, then e would not occur and therefore that e causally depends on c?
So how can c cause e according to the definition without e causally depending on c??
[Question] Question about Lewis’ counterfactual theory of causation
In reading the SEP entry on counterfactual theories of causation, I had the following question occur, and I haven’t been able to satisfactorily resolve it for myself.
An event e is said to causally depend on an event c if and only if e would occur if c were to occur and e would not occur if c were not to occur.
The article makes a point of articulating that causal dependence entails causation (if e causally depends on c, c is a cause of e) but not vice versa. It then defines a causal chain as a fine sequence of events c, d, e,… where d causally depends on c, e on d, and so on, before defining c to be a cause of e if and only if there exists a causal chain leading from c to e.
What I’m having trouble with is understanding how c can cause e according to the given definition without e causally depending on c. If there’s a causal chain from c to d to e, then d causally depends on c, and e causally depends on d, so if c were to not occur, d would not occur, and if d were to not occur, e would not occur. But doesn’t this directly entail that if c were to not occur, then e would not occur and therefore that e causally depends on c?
So how can c cause e according to the definition without e causally depending on c??