logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2021-01-18 18:30:28 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2004

  Newcomb's paradox
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Newcomb's paradox  (Read 5821 times)
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.12
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #15 on: 2004-11-25 06:25:05 »
Reply with quote

post scriptum ii
[interesting enough, my former post scriptum was apparently mailed only
after the main text... 10.50 and 11.00, respectively; at least that's what
my Outlook says]

In another rather boring biological anthropology lecture (or was it that I
was (and am) tired?), I had another idea:

You may be right after all, rhino (we may both be right, or there might not
be a conflict at all... who knows): Determinism is broken, if you want so.
Either that, or it simply cannot accomodate its revelation by species
capable of looking through the concept and willing to act otherwise for
experimental reasons.

If you see the future with 100%-accuracy, what you see is, by definition,
what WILL happen. If you act otherwise, it will "miraculously" happen, as
you phrased it, for it must happen. It is determined. I realised that by
now, however often I contradicted myself in the course (I may contradict
myself again, if I wish). The conclusion one could draw could be, though,
that PREDICTION OF EVENTS INFLUENCED BY ONESELF is impossible.

I wonder how it will look like, if you actually could see the future. Is it
blurred then, or what?

Btw, the transparent-box-problem can have two variations, still:
a) both Chooser and Predictor see the contents
b) only Chooser sees the contents

In the case of b), Predictor would still be uninfluenced by his own actions,
thus, there would not be any paradox.

Either way, the Chooser seems to be in the more comfortable position.

Goodbye for now!
Björn

p.s.: Somewhere I heard that Merlin the wizard was supposed to travel
BACKWARDS on the time axis, thus, his past was supposed to be the future for
all others. Can anyone confirm this memory?

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
Rhysenn
Initiate
**

Gender: Female
Posts: 41
Reputation: 5.71
Rate Rhysenn




Empress544
View Profile E-Mail
Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #16 on: 2004-11-25 10:48:29 »
Reply with quote

p.s.: Somewhere I heard that Merlin the wizard was supposed to travel
BACKWARDS on the time axis, thus, his past was supposed to be the future for
all others. Can anyone confirm this memory?



In The Once and Future King by T. H. White, I believe, Merlin did live backwards, ie when Arthur met him he was very old and as time went on he became younger.
Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.82
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #17 on: 2004-11-25 12:46:32 »
Reply with quote

[rhinoceros]
Apparently the "transparent box" version of this thought experiment is designed as a logical test of the idea of perfect prediction and determinism, leaving free choice alone. It is biased in a sense, but that is what it is meant to test. True, a causal loop appears in all versions of the Newcomb paradox, because of the rule saying that what the Predictor does depends on what the Chooser does. But the rule is not unreasonable or impossible to enforce. The causal loop just happens to appear logically. It seems that paradoxes appear whenever we try to "touch" this causal loop.

And, yes, this is related to the oft-quoted paradox of time-travelling. Usually the SF writers who explore time loops (such as going to the past and killing their grandmother) suggest either a batch of separate deterministic timelines (i.e. there are many words and you just jump into a different one) or a single timeline which can change when time loops appear (i.e. the future is not determined). Another interesting factoid is that the science of Psychohistory, a probabilistic method of prediction in Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series, was not supposed to work if the people knew the prediction.

I'll suggest a much simpler thought experiment at the end of this post, which does not carry all the baggage of Newcomb's problem which was designed to test other ideas too.



[hell-kite]
Yes, this model applies either if the Predictor has no causal effect or if you restrict him to looking into the future just once. The former is not the case in the transparent-box-version, while the latter should be explicitly stated as one of the rules of the game...

[rhinoceros]
But if the Predictor checks again and he sees a different future, then what he saw before was not the actual future, was it? The idea that there is a single deterministic chain of events as in Laplace's demon does not survive in this case either.



[hell-kite]
The conclusion one could draw could be, though, that PREDICTION OF EVENTS INFLUENCED BY ONESELF is impossible.

[rhinoceros]
Haha! Now *this* would be a paradox, if you consider how we think and act in our daily life :-)



[hell-kite]
Btw, the transparent-box-problem can have two variations, still:
a) both Chooser and Predictor see the contents
b) only Chooser sees the contents

In the case of b), Predictor would still be uninfluenced by his own actions, thus, there would not be any paradox.

[rhinoceros]
By the rules of the game, the Predictor should act exactly in the same way in both cases -- based on which boxes the Chooser takes. So, could it be that the Predictor just does not *see* the paradox if he does not see the contents of the box?



[hell-kite]
Either way, the Chooser seems to be in the more comfortable position.

[rhinoceros]
Told you so
The thought experiment is specifically designed to frustrate the Predictor by demonstrating what free choice can do to his prediction.

Now, here is another thought experiment, a simpler one (no boxes and cash involved), which could make it easier to find out the culprit.



Assumptions: There is a predetermined future and it is logically possible to predict it somehow.

Suppose that the above is true. Also suppose that the required technology/magick/whatever becomes available in the Posthuman Galactic Year 52823. If the initial assumptions are correct, this story should not lead to any contradictions.


Monday: Prof. Predictor of the Galactic Labs demonstrates his new device which can predict the future. Many academics and reporters of the Galactic News Network are amazed to see glimpses of future through the 3D projector connected to the device. Prof. Chooser of the Galactic Literature dept. barges in and makes a laconic statement to the news: "Bullshit!".

Prof. Predictor is visibly annoyed. With a smirk, Prof. Chooser turns to his assistant and takes two flags, a red one and a green one. He places them at opposite corners of the room and says: "Tomorrow, about this time, I will come back here and raise one of the flags. Let's predict which one."

Prof. Predictor tunes his device and everyone sees Prof. Chooser raising the red flag.

Tuesday: Prof. Chooser walks into the room and raises the green flag.


Conclusion: The initial assumptions are logically false. Either the future is not predetermined or, if it is preditermined, it is logically impossible to make an absolutely certain prediction.

Possible objection: Yes, but if Prof. Chooser did not know the prediction, he might well act as predicted and there would be no paradox.
Counter-objection: Yes, he might. But what this objection actually does is that it removes the "test" from this thought experiment.

Other possible objections: Maybe there is another hidden assumption somewhere in there, or maybe the whole model of reality in which the concepts are defined is not valid.


By the way, notice that this thought experiment is also designed in such a way that free choice is not questioned/tested. But then again... Prof. Chooser might find that his limbs do not obey him and they drag him to the red flag (this was supposed to be a joke -- oh, well).

Report to moderator   Logged
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.12
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #18 on: 2004-11-25 13:13:18 »
Reply with quote

Hello rhino!

By now, I think, we have reached an agreement. I could subscribe to most of what you said.

Some details:

[old_hell-kite]
Yes, this model applies either if the Predictor has no causal effect or if you restrict him to looking into the future just once. The former is not the case in the transparent-box-version, while the latter should be explicitly stated as one of the rules of the game...

[old_rhinoceros]
But if the Predictor checks again and he sees a different future, then what he saw before was not the actual future, was it?

[hell-kite]
Hm, I guess that's true: In my scenario, he anticipates more than he predicts. Cf. my differentiation between prediction and anticipation below.


[old_hell-kite]
The conclusion one could draw could be, though, that PREDICTION OF EVENTS INFLUENCED BY ONESELF is impossible.

[old_rhinoceros]
Haha! Now *this* would be a paradox, if you consider how we think and act in our daily life :-)

[hell-kite]
As mentioned before, there may be different ways to understand the word prediction. The psychological fact mentioned by you that we "predict" what will happen in the future, I would, in this case, refer to as "anticipate". It is obviously a constructed difference - but anyway, what I meant was that 100%-prediction of events influenced by oneself is impossible, for you might change them.

[Allow me this short digression, "to predict" translates to "vorhersagen" in German, meaning, to SAY in advance. "To anticipate" translates to "vorhersehen", meaning, to SEE in advance. Saying as opposed to seeing has a more definite character - esp. by adressing someone, you create a certain, permanent psychological impression. Seeing, on the other hand, does not affect the environment, so you can essentially look two or more times at the same thing, if you wish. Saying is active, seeing is passive.]

[Note that linguistically all this is most likely crap]


[old_hell-kite]
Btw, the transparent-box-problem can have two variations, still:
a) both Chooser and Predictor see the contents
b) only Chooser sees the contents

In the case of b), Predictor would still be uninfluenced by his own actions, thus, there would not be any paradox.

[old_rhinoceros]
By the rules of the game, the Predictor should act exactly in the same way in both cases -- based on which boxes the Chooser takes. So, could it be that the Predictor just does not *see* the paradox if he does not see the contents of the box?

[hell-kite]
Again, if the Predictor predicts and thus, in a deterministic timeline, can see only one future anyway and is bound to obey the rules, you are right. If he merely anticipates 100% accurately what will happen IF he does a) or b) (or c) or d), for that matter), it does make a difference.

As I said above, I essentially agree with you.

Homeward bound,
Björn
Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2633
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #19 on: 2004-11-25 17:02:25 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: rhinoceros on 2004-11-24 11:32:32   

Your inference is valid, of course. Perfect prediction and free choice are incompatible. So, which one is wrong? Or is it a false dilemma?

[Lucifer]
Neither is completely wrong or right. I suggest an agent lacks free will to the extent that its behaviour can be predicted.  Simple agents are easier to predict and therefore possess relatively less free will. In the particular case of this closed box game of Predictor and Chooser, I think the choice cannot be predicted with certainty.
Report to moderator   Logged
simul
Magister
****

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Reputation: 6.87
Rate simul



I am a lama.
simultaneous zoneediterik
View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #20 on: 2004-11-25 23:42:39 »
Reply with quote

They are both wrong. 

IMHO: All free will is an illusion (albeit one I heartily endorse)  *even though* predictions can *never* be 100% accurate.

So you're dam(n/m)ed on both sides.



-----Original Message-----
From: "David Lucifer" <david@lucifer.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:02:30
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox


[quote from: rhinoceros on 2004-11-24 at 09:32:32]
Your inference is valid, of course. Perfect prediction and free choice are incompatible. So, which one is wrong? Or is it a false dilemma?

[Lucifer]
Neither is completely wrong or right. I suggest an agent lacks free will to the extent that its behaviour can be predicted.  Simple agents are easier to predict and therefore possess relatively less free will. In the particular case of this closed box game of Predictor and Chooser, I think the choice cannot be predicted with certainty.

----
This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2004 board on Church of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=31060>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.12
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #21 on: 2004-11-26 04:51:23 »
Reply with quote

Sometimes, I hate the memes. Especially if those replicate that concern my
customary, free car parking place AND IT IS OCCUPIED WHEN I GET THERE.

But nevermind.

Still, sometimes, blatancy, or honesty, or even, Aronesty [:-)] can be the
memetically most effective: Thus, "damn the argument" sounds reasonable as
the ultima ratio to re-establish the status quo of opinions. That is, each
person's opinion, and mine is perfectly congruent with Erik's. What a
surprise.

I suspect both David and rhino to hold the same opinion, though - thought
experiments usually amount to playing one's own advocatus diaboli in order
to reach a more thorough understanding of a subject. Not as if you didn't
know...

After all, we have to remember that this thought experiment is no real
argument at all, because it is not verified (feels evil to use this word)
its conditions can be met. It is - imho - most likely impossible that
100%-accurate-prediction, or time-travel for that matter, will ever happen.
So any paradoxes encountered in this WHAT IF-situation have no real
decisional value for my opinion pro or contra free will/determinism.

It's like saying, "WHAT IF there was a personal creator god who punishes you
after death if you don't comply? You see, you really should obey the ten
commandments..."

Isn't it?

Off to visit grandma :-(,
Björn





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von Erik Aronesty
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. November 2004 05:43
An: Church of Virus
Betreff: Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox


They are both wrong.

IMHO: All free will is an illusion (albeit one I heartily endorse)  *even
though* predictions can *never* be 100% accurate.

So you're dam(n/m)ed on both sides.



-----Original Message-----
From: "David Lucifer" <david@lucifer.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:02:30
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox


[quote from: rhinoceros on 2004-11-24 at 09:32:32]
Your inference is valid, of course. Perfect prediction and free choice are
incompatible. So, which one is wrong? Or is it a false dilemma?

[Lucifer]
Neither is completely wrong or right. I suggest an agent lacks free will to
the extent that its behaviour can be predicted.  Simple agents are easier to
predict and therefore possess relatively less free will. In the particular
case of this closed box game of Predictor and Chooser, I think the choice
cannot be predicted with certainty.

----
This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2004 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=310
60>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2633
Reputation: 8.89
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #22 on: 2004-12-07 23:54:03 »
Reply with quote

The Meta-Newcomb Problem >>
http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/newcomb.html
Report to moderator   Logged
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.12
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #23 on: 2004-12-08 03:39:09 »
Reply with quote

choice = decision to take a box OR
choice = taking a box?

In case 2, which I favour, is there really a paradox?

I mean, then it only depends on having taken box 2, not on your having
pondered to do this or that.

B.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]Im Auftrag
von David Lucifer
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2004 05:54
An: virus@lucifer.com
Betreff: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox



The Meta-Newcomb Problem >>
http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/newcomb.html

----
This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2004 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=310
60>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
DrSebby
Magister
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 456
Reputation: 6.63
Rate DrSebby



...Oh, you smell of lambs!
18680476 18680476    dr_sebby drsebby
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #24 on: 2004-12-08 14:31:21 »
Reply with quote


...this puzzle seems fun at first, but once you ponder the nicities of it,
the interest fades away.  this is due to the impossibility of the situation
: namely the predictor.  if you think about it, countless such
quasi-paradoxes are possible if you make an impossibility
possible....especially those concerning future divination.  e.g.:  if
someone can predict the future...and then they do the opposite.  what then? 
these may generate oohs and aahs when surrounded by terrestrial elements
such as cats, boxes and money, but the core of the question is just an
impossibility which then relegates the answer to "meaningless" and
unecessary.


DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".




----Original Message Follows----
From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Newcomb's paradox
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:50:48 -0700

This is a thought experiment which can take many forms and pose interesting
problems to different fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_paradox

Let's see the first form, which has to do with timelines, free choice and
determinism.

There are two players: the Chooser and the Predictor.

The Chooser is presented with two boxes. An open one which contains $1,000
and a closed one which contains either $1,000,000 or $0. He can choose to
take either only the closed box or both. "Why, both, of course!" you might
say. But there is a catch.

The Predictor can see the future with 100% certainty. He is the one who puts
the money in the boxes the previous day, and he knows what the Chooser is
going to do. He decides to do the following:

- If he predicts that the Chooser is going to take both boxes, he will leave
the closed box empty and the Chooser will get only $1,000.

- If he predicts that the Chooser is going to take only the closed box he
will put the $1,000,000 in it, so the Chooser will get $1,000,000.

The Chooser knows the rules but he does not know the prediction. "Easy. It
is obvious from the rules that he should take only the closed box and put
the $1,000,000 in his bank acount", you might say.

But this is where it becomes interesting. When the Chooser stands before the
boxes, the Predictor has finished his part. The money either are in the box
or not. Nothing is "quantum" or "Schroedinger-ish". The chooser gets to act,
and he thinks: "If the prediction was that I will take only the closed box,
the million is already there, so I will just take both boxes to get one
thousand more".

The paradox becomes even more weird if both boxes are transparent and the
Chooser sees what's in them.

Questions about determinism, timelines and choice arise from here. Discuss?



----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2004 board on Church of
Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=31060>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

"courage and shuffle the cards..."
DrSebby
Magister
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 456
Reputation: 6.63
Rate DrSebby



...Oh, you smell of lambs!
18680476 18680476    dr_sebby drsebby
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #25 on: 2004-12-08 20:01:37 »
Reply with quote

i couldnt agree with you more, dear Eric.



DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".




----Original Message Follows----
From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: "Church of Virus" <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:42:39 +0000 GMT

They are both wrong.

IMHO: All free will is an illusion (albeit one I heartily endorse)  *even
though* predictions can *never* be 100% accurate.

So you're dam(n/m)ed on both sides.



-----Original Message-----
From: "David Lucifer" <david@lucifer.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:02:30
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox


[quote from: rhinoceros on 2004-11-24 at 09:32:32]
Your inference is valid, of course. Perfect prediction and free choice are
incompatible. So, which one is wrong? Or is it a false dilemma?

[Lucifer]
Neither is completely wrong or right. I suggest an agent lacks free will to
the extent that its behaviour can be predicted.  Simple agents are easier to
predict and therefore possess relatively less free will. In the particular
case of this closed box game of Predictor and Chooser, I think the choice
cannot be predicted with certainty.

----
This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2004 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=31060>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

"courage and shuffle the cards..."
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.82
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:Newcomb's paradox
« Reply #26 on: 2004-12-31 03:41:58 »
Reply with quote

Gorogh
Sent: 25 November 2004 01:25 PM
<snip>p.s.: Somewhere I heard that Merlin the wizard was supposed to
travel
BACKWARDS on the time axis, thus, his past was supposed to be the future
for
all others. Can anyone confirm this memory? </snip>

[Blunderov] Sorry to get to this so belatedly. Yes; in TH White's "The
Once and Future King" Merlin lives backwards in time, becoming younger
as he grows older. In other respects though, Merlin was apparently no
less susceptible to human promptings than the rest of us:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Mal1Mor.sgm&images=i
mages/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=62&divisi
on=div2

<Snip>How Merlin was assotted and doted on one of the ladies of the
lake, and how he was shut in a rock under a stone and there died...

...And so, soon after, the lady and Merlin departed, and by the way
Merlin showed her many wonders, and came into Cornwall. And always
Merlin lay about the lady to have her maidenhood, and she was ever
passing weary of him, and fain would have been delivered of him, for she
was afeard of him because he was a devil's son, and she could not
beskift* him by no mean. And so on a time it happed that Merlin showed
to her in a rock whereas was a great wonder, and wrought by enchantment,
that went under a great stone. So by her subtle working she made Merlin
to go under that stone to let her wit of the marvels there; but she
wrought so there for him that he came never out for all the craft he
could do. And so she departed and left Merlin.</snip> 

http://www.greenmanreview.com/onceandfutureking.html

<Snip>This classic work is a must for anyone interested in Arthurian
legend. White has taken Thomas Malory's Morte d'Arthur and retold it in
modern language, in a novel that adults and young people can read over
and over with pleasure and tears. It is an enormously influential novel
as well, a book by which other tellings of the legend are judged.

White's version of the legend takes place in the 13th century,
presumably because that's when Malory set his work. However, historians
agree that the real Arthur lived sometime in the fifth century AD. So
much is known about the kings of England after the Norman Conquest that
there is no way Arthur could have reigned then without our
knowledge.</snip>

[Blunderov] See also http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/futureking/

It will be remembered that Sir Elton John had a major hit with a song
called "Candle in the Wind" which was originally about the death of
Marilyn Monroe and later reworked to refer instead to the death of
Princess Diana of Wales. The fourth book in the (quartet)"Once and
Future King" is entitled "The Candle in the Wind" which was first
published in 1958. Seemingly this poignant phrase has become a common
figure of speech - "Candle in the Wind" is also the name of a 1941 play
by Maxwell Anderson.

A very happy New Year to my much beloved congregation - may all your
candles grow longer and brighter.

*(Yes, I didn't know this one either.)Beskift = shove off.






---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed