We can conclude that if B occurred

*after*A, then the outcome of event B could not have had any influence on the outcome of A.

Whereas with independent events, the roll of die A has no effect on the roll of die B, and neither does the roll of die B have an effect on the outcome of die A. Therefore we can conclude the notion of before/after is meaningless for independent events.

And if we claim the events are simultaneous, that there is no before/after relationship between them, then causality between them cannot be claimed either.

So let's say we use a test for independence on a set of observations, and conclude the events A and B are independent.

Therefore I declare before/after is meaningless and so is causality between these two events.

If you're about to say "that's part of the definition -- that's what independence means!" then congratulations, you agree with me.

What if instead the test for independence on the set of outcomes for A and B showed they're

**independent? What can you say about that?**

*not*