Maybe to explain what I meant by the questions, it would be better if I ask them by way of examples, and from those I will already infer the answers.
I know that temporal succession does not mean causality; that’s exactly my question — what does it mean to see causality? How does it help solve the problem if you see the idea of causality?
Suppose I see body A meet B, and afterward B moves.
And suppose I even see in the world of ideas that there really is an idea of causality “written” there, saying that in the case of bodies where one chronologically precedes the second and then the second moves, you should know that it is because of the first.
Still, that doesn’t mean that the case I just saw now, of A and B, is because of causality… so why should I care that such an idea exists?!

So I assume your claim is that such an idea does not exist in that form (it may exist, but without connection to this). Rather, the main claim is that you actually see, so to speak hovering, this idea in the concrete reality, in the present situation. But still, how does that help?!
Suppose some idea is “hovering” over body A, and likewise over body B. That still doesn’t mean that when I see A collide with B, the relation of B’s moving is a relation of causation!
So I did not understand what exactly was gained here.
I would be glad if the Rabbi would describe the process of our inference regarding the causal relation.

However, in a case like induction — where is the idea located?! It cannot be located in the projected case, because it has not yet happened. And once you check and it happened, then you no longer need the idea.
Though here there is more room to argue that the idea reveals to us that induction exists and that indeed the case will repeat itself (for example, in the case of the laws of nature, that there is regularity in nature.)

I wrote, and I repeat, that temporal succession is not causality.
When I see event A and afterward event B, and I discern that there is a causal relation between them (and that is not always true), then I ascribe a causal connection to them. I do not choose an idea and attach it to something. I simply see the causal connection. It is not an inference but a perception. You would not ask me how I infer that there is a wall in front of me from the fact that I see a wall. So too, there is no point asking how I infer that there is a causal relation from the fact that I see (with the eyes of the intellect, or in ideational perception) a causal relation.

(Yes, I know that this is not causality; in causality there is also a relation of producing the effect, but for the sake of the question I had to phrase it this way :/)
In any case, I understand, thanks! It is really a strange thought to think that this is indeed what happens, that you simply see that A caused B.

And if possible, I’d be glad if the Rabbi would describe the connection to induction. For example, if the sun rose 1,000 times, why assume that it will rise tomorrow too? (I saw that you don’t want to ground induction primarily in causality.)
Here it is not at all clear what the eyes of the intellect recognize. After all, the next situation (the following day) has still not happened. And the current situation has already happened. So where is our intellectual perception here? What does it see?
And if you claim that we know that there exists an idea of induction, we still have no reason to attach it from that world to this case.
Here are we really encountering an idea that says the sun will rise next time?

Maybe we have an intuitive perception of the idea of the laws of nature, and that idea is that the laws of nature are constant. And therefore, when we see the laws of nature here in the world, we have reason to assume that they are constant.
But then you have to assume that there is an idea of induction for each and every case separately. (Laws of nature, a die, and so on.)

You simply wrote about this in maybe six lines in Truth and Unstable, and it wasn’t really settled out (at least that’s how I remember it, in the chapter on the ideas). And it’s not all that clear — rather, very general.

I am not opposed to grounding induction in causality. On the contrary, it actually seems reasonable. What I argued was that if one does not understand causality itself, then it does not help to base induction on it. But after one understands causality, there is no obstacle to explaining induction by saying that one sees a causal connection.
By the way, one can also see the general law through the particular case. You stand before an event and understand that it is a local and temporary application of a general law.

Thank you!
I didn’t quite understand what you meant by seeing the general law through the particular case.
From what I understood, it comes out from your words that I certainly need an idea for each case on its own. For example, I identify the idea of the laws of nature, which teaches that the laws of nature are cyclical and orderly. Then I assume that the cases I saw are part of the general law (nature)?
And so too with the die that I see — does it have an idea of a general law for the die?
Or can one split it and argue that some things I see through an idea (like laws of nature), and some I infer from seeing causality (as in the case of the die)

My mistake — the name is Kobi 😉 … not Michael. (I think that’s from a really old message.)

Anything is possible. Sometimes you see that there is a general law here, and sometimes you apply here the insight that there are general laws and conjecture that this is the case here too. It is hard for me to give a full theory of a phenomenon that is not exposed to our eyes. In several places (including Truth and Unstable) I gave the example of generalizing points into a straight-line graph. We simply see that this is the general law, and therefore choose it rather than a more complex and convoluted graph.

Michi, would it not be more correct to ground causality in induction (rather than the reverse)?
That is, there is within us (naturally and unconsciously) a general “belief” that what appears before our eyes is not random or a private case, but rather expresses a general law (until proven otherwise); this belief is the power of induction, and through it one can explain causality (as a special case of it): when, following a certain state, some phenomenon appears before us, we tend to think that this sequence is not accidental, but testifies to causation (an essential relation between past and present, or between cause and effect)?

Causality generates induction, and that constitutes an indication of the existence of causality. If A is a sufficient condition for B, then B is necessary for A, and vice versa.

I didn’t understand. I’d be glad if you could elaborate a bit.

What I mean is that you are talking about how we infer causality from induction. If the feeling is that the continuity is not accidental, the conclusion is that there is causality in the background. But the relation of causation in the world itself is the reverse: because of the principle of causality, one can rely on induction, since the principle of causality says that there is a connection between cause and effect; consequently, one may infer that this connection between them will also appear going forward.
Similarly, on the logical-inferential plane, when there is rain you can infer from this that there are clouds. The direction of inference is from the rain to the clouds. But on the physical-causal plane, the relation is the opposite: the clouds are what create the rain (from the clouds to the rain).

Thank you.