>The role of experimental design is to produce an environment in nothing else could cause B, such that a correlation could only be produced from causation.
Causation is not established from isolated correlation. If I completely isolate two atomic clocks but I start off those atomic clocks at the same time it does not mean one atomic clock, causes the ticking of the other even though their ticks are in sync or they have "granger causation" and can have no other form of influence.
Causation is only established by having the experimenters hand within the experiment itself. If A causes B then I have to turn A on and turn A off randomly and see if B responds as predicted. That is how causation is established. Isolation helps with this but the critical factor here is that experimental intervention is the thing that establishes causation. Remember: Correlation is an observation, causation is an intervention, then subsequent observation to see how the system reacted to the intervention.
Physics experiments focus more on the observational side of things. The causation is more meta. You're not asking if A causes B, more your asking if the concept of "A causing B" even exists.
>No, but it would make sense to say that Newton's Laws states that a causal relationship exists
This doesn't make sense. Newtons laws or physics in general define what causality means. Right? It defines the rules for how one particle "influences" another particle... hence it defines the nature of causality itself.
Do you see the difference here? You're not investigating whether or not A causes B. You're investigating the definition of "causes." Hence it's a observational experiment. It's a much more meta... and as a result becomes purely correlative as we can only observe physics, we can't change or intervene within the experiment itself to change physics.
Causation is not established from isolated correlation. If I completely isolate two atomic clocks but I start off those atomic clocks at the same time it does not mean one atomic clock, causes the ticking of the other even though their ticks are in sync or they have "granger causation" and can have no other form of influence.
Causation is only established by having the experimenters hand within the experiment itself. If A causes B then I have to turn A on and turn A off randomly and see if B responds as predicted. That is how causation is established. Isolation helps with this but the critical factor here is that experimental intervention is the thing that establishes causation. Remember: Correlation is an observation, causation is an intervention, then subsequent observation to see how the system reacted to the intervention.
Physics experiments focus more on the observational side of things. The causation is more meta. You're not asking if A causes B, more your asking if the concept of "A causing B" even exists.
>No, but it would make sense to say that Newton's Laws states that a causal relationship exists
This doesn't make sense. Newtons laws or physics in general define what causality means. Right? It defines the rules for how one particle "influences" another particle... hence it defines the nature of causality itself.
Do you see the difference here? You're not investigating whether or not A causes B. You're investigating the definition of "causes." Hence it's a observational experiment. It's a much more meta... and as a result becomes purely correlative as we can only observe physics, we can't change or intervene within the experiment itself to change physics.