3 ms·

I think you're using the word "insignificant" in a possibly misleading or confusing way. I think in this context, the issue with the spurious correlations from

by abeppu 2y ago

I think you're using the word "insignificant" in a possibly misleading or confusing way. I think in this context, the issue with the spurious correlations from that site is that they're all time series for overlapping periods. Of course, the people who collected these understood that time was an important causal factor in all these phenomena. In the graphical language of this post: T --> X_i T --> X_j Since T is a common cause to both, we should expect to see a mutual information between X_i, X_j. In the paradigm here, we could try to control for T and see if a relationship persists (i.e. perhaps in the same month, collect observations for X_i, X_j in each of a large number of locales), and get a signal on whether some the shared dependence on time is the only link.

westurner 2y ago
If a test of dependence shows no significant results, that's not conclusive because of complex, nonlinear, and quantum 'functions'. How are effect lag and lead expressed in said notation for expressing causal charts? Should we always assume that t is a monotonically-increasing series, or is it just how we typically sample observations? Can traditional causal inference describe time crystals? What is the quantum logical statistical analog of mutual information? Are there pathological cases where mutual information and quantum information will not discover a relationship? Does Quantum Mutual Information account for Quantum Discord if it only uses von Neumann definition of entropy?