You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

IlyaShpitser comments on Open thread, Nov. 10 - Nov. 16, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 10 November 2014 08:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 12 November 2014 12:55:36PM *  4 points [-]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411057.pdf

That is a remarkable error, actually. As far as I can tell, it's basically denying that conditional independence is possible in Nature (!?)


The existence of Bell's inequality is basically a theorem about marginals of Bayesian networks with hidden variables. If you get an independence in the underlying Bayes net, you sometimes get an inequality in the marginal. This is not about causality at all, or about physics at all, this is a logical consequence of a conditional independence structure. It does not matter if it is causal or physical or not. Bell's theorem is about this graph: A -> B <- H -> C <- D, where we marginalize out H. My "friend in Jesus" Robin Evans has some general conditions on graphs for when this sort of thing happens.