Q: Is causality sometimes referred to in thought experiments and hypothetical analyses? ¶
A: Yes, and causality is generally accepted to be temporally bound so that causes always precede their dependent effects.
Q: Is causality one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics? ¶
Q: Is causality some existing relationship in the world that we can harness for our desires? ¶
Q: Is causality considered conditional aggregates necessary to man's productive work? ¶
Q: Is causality a subtle metaphysical notion? ¶
A: Yes, and considerable effort is needed to establish knowledge of it in particular empirical circumstances.
Q: Is causality identified with our manipulation? ¶
A: Yes, and then this intuition is lost.
Q: Is causality an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses? ¶
A: Yes, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic.
Q: Is causality not causal relationships or causal interactions? ¶
A: Yes, but rather identifying causal processes.
Q: Is causality metaphysically prior to the notions of time and space? ¶
Q: Is causality built into the conceptual structure of ordinary language? ¶
Q: Is causality much greater when supported by cross-correlations? ¶
A: Yes, and ARIMA models, or cross-spectral analysis using vector time series data than by cross-sectional data.
Q: Is causality not inherently implied in equations of motion, but postulated as an additional constraint that needs to be satisfied? ¶
A: Yes, This constraint has mathematical implications such as the Kramers-Kronig relations.