Question

Hello,
The Rabbi mentions many times that the principle of causality cannot be learned from the senses. And consequently, because of that, he argues that it is our intellectual intuition that teaches it to us.
I do agree that the principle of causality cannot be learned from the senses, but why must that understanding lead to the conclusion that it is the eyes of the intellect that discern it? After all, simple and clear logic is what guides us to accept this simple principle, by means of a straightforward statistical calculation.
For example, when we see ball A strike ball B, and as a result ball B moves forward. David Hume’s claim is that one cannot infer that A caused B. Because all we see is temporal sequence between the events, but not an essential connection of causation.
But if we conduct an experiment to test this, and examine the two hypotheses:

• Ball A did not cause ball B to move.
• Ball A causes ball B to move.

Given the first hypothesis, the probability that ball B would move rather than something else happening instead (for example, remaining in place) approaches 0. By contrast, given the second hypothesis, the probability that ball B would move following A approaches 1.
We tested it and found that ball B moved. If so, it is much more reasonable to attribute its movement to ball A having caused it. And so the principle of causality has been proven. Q.E.D.
It is worth remembering that we encounter this experiment at every moment. And at every moment this principle is confirmed for us more and more.