English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

R\'edei and san Pedro discuss my "Comparing Causality Principles," their mainaim being to distinguish reasonable weakened versions of two causalityprinciples presented there, "SO1" and "SO2". They also argue that the proofthat SO1 implies SO2 contains a flaw. Here, a reply is made to a number ofpoints raised in their paper. It is argued that the "intuition" that SO1 shouldbe stronger than SO2 is implicitly based on a false premise. It is pointed outthat a similar weakening of SO2 was already considered in the original paper.The technical definition of the new conditions is shown to be defective. Theargument against the stronger versions of SO1 and SO2 given by R\'edei and sanPedro is criticised. The flaw in the original proof is shown to be an easilycorrected mistake in the wording. Finally, it is argued that some cited resultson causal conditions in AQFT have little relevance to these issues, and are, inany case, highly problematic in themselves.

Confounding Causality Principles: comment on R\'edei and san Pedro's "Distinguishing Causality Principles"