When intervention actually occurs and A is prevented after B has occurred, only that particular token instance of A is shown not to be the cause of that particular token instance of B
intervention(Used within manipulability theories of causation)
An action or event I on a variable X that breaks the causal connection between X and its causes while leaving other causal mechanisms intact, or that does not affect Y via a causal route that does not go through X.
particular(as used in philosophy of language and metaphysics)
A specific individual thing (like this exact pen or that specific moment), as opposed to a general category or abstract concept.
Now, the bilking argument holds that backward causation is impossible because we can always intervene after we have observe that the alleged effect occurs and obstruct the alleged cause from occurring. Since nothing prohibits us from doing this whenever we want, it demonstrates that backward causation does not take place. Indeed, if we actually intervene and prevent \(A\) after \(B\) has occurred, then of course a particular later \(A\) (which does not exist) cannot be the cause of a particular