Cool, it sounds like we mostly agree. For instance, I agree that once you set up the graph correctly, you can intervene do(.) style and get the Right Answer. The general thrust of these posts is that “setting up the graph correctly” involves drawing in lines / representing world-structure that is generally considered (by many) to be “non-causal”.
Figuring out what graph to draw is indeed the hard part of the problem—my point is merely that “graphs that represent the causal structure of the universe and only the causal structure of the universe” are not the right sort of graphs to draw, in the same way that a propensity theory of probability that only allows information to propagate causally is not a good way to reason about probabilities.
Figuring out what sort of graphs we do want to intervene on requires stepping beyond a purely causal decision theory.
Cool, it sounds like we mostly agree. For instance, I agree that once you set up the graph correctly, you can intervene
do(.)style and get the Right Answer. The general thrust of these posts is that “setting up the graph correctly” involves drawing in lines / representing world-structure that is generally considered (by many) to be “non-causal”.Figuring out what graph to draw is indeed the hard part of the problem—my point is merely that “graphs that represent the causal structure of the universe and only the causal structure of the universe” are not the right sort of graphs to draw, in the same way that a propensity theory of probability that only allows information to propagate causally is not a good way to reason about probabilities.
Figuring out what sort of graphs we do want to intervene on requires stepping beyond a purely causal decision theory.