The Blind Dice-Thrower

I haven't written a serious piece in a while now and thought this would be worthy of investigation. Two nights ago France and Ireland were playing in the second leg of a qualifier to determine which team went to the World Cup in June. Whoever won was going to take the 31st of 32 places in the World Cup, the last place being taken by Uruguay a few hours later. Ireland lost the first leg 1-0 and were winning 1-0 in France so the game went to extra time there, and Gallas scored a goal where several breaches were committed in the run-up. These were:
1. Henry was offside.
2. He handled the ball when it first came to him.
3. He handles it again to knock it onto his foot so he can cross it into the 6 yard box where Gallas heads it into the goal.

There's a video of it here.

Some have argued that the first handling of the ball was accidental, that the ball came to him so fast that it hit him without him realising it. But everybody, I think, believes that the second touch was deliberate. He moves his hand to the ball and directs the ball toward his foot. The most charitable thing you can say (and what Henry does argue) is that the first touch was accidental and the second instinctive. If a touch is instinctive then it is not accidental. It is the result of a pre-determined strategy of how to play the game. Not all players would make instinctive moves that breach the rules of the game, and some would. We should still discourage and penalise these supposedly instinctive breaches, but they should be treated slightly more leniently than a breach deemed fully deliberate or pre-meditatively deliberate. This game is done and dusted, and France are currently registered as being in the World Cup finals. It's also quite notable that FIFA took 2 full days to make any statement concerning the game (this happened within the last hour). According to some, the report of the match on their website failed to include any indication that there was even any controversy about the goal. Furthermore, no replies of the goal were shown in the Stade de France after the goal, presumably because there was no video of the event that did not clearly show the handballs.

What should be done? I want to consider only what should happen about the result of this match. There are further consequences that can be discussed, but I will not concern myself with them. These are: what sort of penalty should Henry receive for his actions, if any? What sort of penalty should the referee and other officials receive for their actions, if any? And should we now bring video replay evidence into the game?

As regards the result of the match, I believe that there are four discernible outcomes:

1. Let the result stand. Let France continue to the World Cup with the same status and opportunities as any other team.
2. Let the result stand. Let France continue to the World Cup but let it be universally acknowledged that controversy surrounded their qualification to the World Cup, and that any progress they make and the progress of any other teams which they impede by taking part will also be subject to the same controversy.
3. Let the French Football Federation have the choice to offer an official replay. If the Irish Football Association accept the offer (which they have already indicated they would), then FIFA honour the agreement and allow an official replay.
4. FIFA step in and order an official replay, without the consent of the FFF.

It seems that 1 is overwhelmingly likely. Option 2 will not happen in practice. It might be the case that in the eyes of every football fan it will be true anyway, but there will not be any official support for Option 2. I actually don't think it would be fair anyway since France have not as yet been given the opportunity to put the wrong right. For the same reason I can't agree with Option 4 either, as it is unfair on France. France have done everything right at the moment. Only one player on the team is actually guilty of anything, and that guilt should not affect the rest of the team. When two teams play a match under FIFA's rules, they agree beforehand that the referee's decision is absolutely final. By agreeing to this they both consent to the possibility (hopefully very small) that some wildly unfair injustices will occur. Luck is a massive part of football, and many sports, and is one of the reasons why it is so enjoyable to play and watch.

I'm therefore left with either Options 1 or 3. The main argument against Option 3 is that the possibility of replays of matches opens up the floodgates to lots of claims that matches should be replayed. But there is already a FIFA precedent for replaying games. In a qualifier for the 2006 World Cup Bahrain and Uzbekistan were ordered to replay when the referee ordered a free kick within the goal area to be awarded to Bahrain because during the successful scoring of a penalty one of the other Uzbek players entered the penalty area. The correct rule was that the penalty should be re-taken. FIFA's Law 5 of the laws of the game states that a replay may only occur when the referee makes a mistake of football law, which is what happened in that game. If he makes a mistake of fact then his original decision is final as soon as play continues. (i.e. he can undo a decision as long as it is done very quickly and does not interrupt the continuity of the game) In the France v Ireland game the referee and his assistants made a mistake of fact only, somehow failing to see an offside and two blatant handballs.

So on the current rules of the game it seems that Option 1 will prevail. However, as I am arguing for what should happen, I think that there are extraordinary circumstances which warrant the application of Option 3. I do not think that the floodgates would open to future claims for replays because the circumstances in this particular case are so extreme that they deserve to be treated with a change to the rules. These are the relevant circumstances:

1. The action that led to the goal was seriously outside the spirit of the game.
2. It occurred long enough before the goal (a few seconds) to distract all the Irish players from preventing the goal since they all immediately appealed for the handball.
3. It was a seriously bad refereeing error.
4. It occurred close to the end of the game. It wasn't decisive, but not too far off. (Compare with the beachball incident recently where Liverpool had almost the entire match to get back into it after conceding a bizarre and unjust goal)
5. Ireland were massive underdogs in every respect.
6. They played better anyway. I'm sure most people would grant this.
7. They'd already been subjected to FIFA's arbitrary seeding decision, which looks a lot like FIFA had made a decision to favour France and the other big teams.
8. Until that point, if you count the two legs as one long tie, they were undefeated in the whole campaign, including twice to the world champions.
9. They had to play the second leg away which is a disadvantage anyway.
10. There's plenty of time to replay this match. There is no schedule to keep to or any tournament that would be disrupted by doing so. There's still 7 months to go until the World Cup and both teams will play pointless friendlies in that time.
11. There seems to be widespread public support for it to happen, including on behalf of the team that won the game, including both captains, high-up Irish politicians and well-respected veterans of the France national team, (e.g. Ginola, Lizarazu) and Arsene Wenger (A French manager who a few years ago offered a replay to Sheffield United during an F.A. Cup match where his team benefited from unfair play)
12. It's for a place in the World Cup finals, the most prestigious sporting competition in the world. Arguably, just getting there is worth more to any nation than winning the thing is to a team already qualified for it.

I don't believe even 8 of these factors are enough to set a new precedent, but 12 just about is. The floodgates won't open as this precedent will only apply to cases that satisfy about as many of the conditions that are satisfied in this case. Also, note that I am advocating Option 3 here, not Option 4. There can be no floodgates opening if the replay must be at the consent of the team that would benefit from there not being a replay. Of particular importance is no. 7. At the end of the league part of the European qualification process, 8 teams remained that would play in a knockout round to decide the last 4 European teams in the World Cup. Halfway through the campaign FIFA decided to implement the rule that these knockout matches would be subject to seeding, with France, Russia, Portugal and Greece being seeded against Ireland, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Ukraine. Many critics have suggested that the reason for this was to maximise the number of "big nations" that made it to the World Cup, notably France, Russia and Portugal, but mainly France who had had a poor qualifying campaign and unexpectedly come 2nd in their group. It looks a lot like there was bias in favour of France by FIFA and how this case has been dealt with by them looks to strongly support this bias.

FIFA very recently made the comment:

`There is no way the game can replayed.

'To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.

'FIFA's rules are absolutely clear. Law 5 states that a referee's decision on points of fact are final. That is the end of it. You cannot replay the match on this basis.

'You have to have a rule that says the referee's judgement is always right.'

But we already know that FIFA are willing to change the rules in the middle of a football season so why should a new precedent not be considered now? Not long after FIFA issued this statement, the FFF gave the following statement: (translated from the French using Google)

In light of numerous reactions from Wednesday night in Ireland as in France, the FFF wants to make the following three comments:
1. The FFF has understands the disappointment and bitterness of players, officials and supporters in Ireland. She never sought to deny arbitration because allowing the tying goal validation French. By the end of the match and because the French football itself has suffered in the past events of similar nature, the FFF leaders have expressed their Irish counterparts regret and sympathy.

2. Thierry Henry, captain of Team France, recognized his fault spontaneous labor. He was from the end of the meeting with the Irish players and the referee, then the media. This frankness and honesty are at the height of the exemplary career he has accomplished in all its clubs as well as national team. Faced with the pressure it undergoes the French Football Federation was providing full support.

3. The Federation of Ireland (FAI) was asked yesterday to FIFA that the match be replayed. FIFA rejected this request today, recalling the Laws of the game that govern the conduct of all football games: "The referee's decisions on facts related to the game are final, including Validation of a goal and the match result. Consequently, the result of the match can not be changed or the game replayed.
The decision by FIFA is authoritative and binding on the two federations.

They did not address whether they would have offered a replay had FIFA not intervened first and declared that no replay could be official. The FFF have been under a lot of pressure to offer a replay, but now FIFA making this decision has lifted the responsibility to do so away from them. This has just become one more of many unpopular decisions made by FIFA. Hopefully it will be the last, but I highly doubt it.

I believe that FIFA have tacitly made contradictory remarks here. On their website they state that:

i)Winning is without value if victory has been achieved unfairly or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing fair requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. Fair play always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns respect, while cheating only brings shame. Remember: it is only a game. And games are pointless unless played fairly.

So now they must admit that the whole World Cup is pointless. France's inclusion in the World Cup finals will have effects on many teams who don't at all consider the World Cup to be pointless. The French team and fans will now have to suffer from the fact that they should not necessarily be there and are essentially playing an illegitimate World Cup. No matter how well they play or even if they win it, their result will be marred by this event. So FIFA have robbed them as well as the Irish. In principle anyway. I actually suspect that FIFA and the FFF are in a very close relationship. Sepp Blatter (President of FIFA) and Michel Platini (President of UEFA) are both French. Blatter reportedly failed to present the last World Cup to Italy because he was upset that they had beaten France to get it. He is a controversial figure who seems to care more about results than the spirit of the game.

I just saw this piece on the BBC website about it being Philosophy Day today. They have quite a few philosophical questions which they ask the lay person to think about. I actually thought the answers to all of them were reasonably obvious. Maybe I've just been thinking about this stuff too long. Here are the questions and my simple answers.

* Is certainty the same as truth?

No. Certainty has epistemic connotations. We usually use it to talk about somebody's belief and a person being certain or uncertain of something. Whereas truth is not at all dependent upon belief.

* Do all Polos taste the same?

No. Most of them taste very similar but they're not physically identical. Plus a polo dropped in mud would taste quite different to a regular polo and I don't think it being dropped in mud is enough for it to lose its identity as a polo.

* Is the Hokey Cokey really what it's all about?

No. The Hokey Cokey isn't a good answer to any question asking what something is all about, except for trivial questions like "What is the Hokey Cokey all about?"

* Can you photograph a wink?

Yes. It wouldn't be obvious from your photograph that you had photographed a wink but you still have done. A wink occurred. While the wink was occurring a photograph was taken representing some of the process. This is sufficient.

* Is my God your God?

No. I don't have a "God". Even if I did it wouldn't necessarily be the case that my god and your god were identical. If it was a necessary condition for both of us that our God had to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnificent etc, then it would be difficult to reconcile the existence of one god with the other, so we ought to concede that they are identical and that perhaps one or both of us are wrong about its properties.

* Is there a difference between an 'exit' and a 'way out'?

No. They are the same thing, This is analytically true, i.e. true in virtue of the meanings of the words.

* Could God be an atheist?

No. God cannot be anything. If you persist in believing in one anyway then his being omniscient would contradict his possible atheism.

* Is Monday not Tuesday as much as Wednesday isn't?

Yes. Monday and Wednesday are equally not Wednesday, in virtue of neither being Wednesday at all.

* Are two all-you-can-eat breakfasts twice as big as one?

It depends. Is an all-you-can-eat breakfast defined as being of potentially infinite or undetermined size? If so then no. Is an all-you-can-eat breakfast a particular breakfast that satisfies all one can eat for some person? If so then yes.

* Is it OK to let someone in the queue behind you?

No. Unless you are at the back of the queue, or you have the consent of everybody else behind you. Otherwise it has a negative effect on other people behind you.

* Does having plans help you become the sort of person you used to want to be?

Not necessarily but probably. It isn't necessarily the case that a plan you have must correspond to the wishes to be a certain sort of person that only a former version of yourself held and not your current self. Probably it corresponds to both, so having plans would help you to become what you used to want to be, and also what you still want to be.

* Can you be proud of someone you've never met?

Yes. You can still be acquainted with somebody you've never met. I don't think whether you can be proud of somebody has anything to do with whether you have met them, although in practice being proud of somebody will be a major indicator that you have met them.

* Just because we can, should we?

No. That would lead to moral absurdities. Even if "should" is construed non-morally, you can often be capable of doing one thing and its negation, but it can't be right that you ought to do both, since it would be impossible to do both.

* Should you trust everyone once?

No. No normal person could ever conceive of trusting every single existing person. Unless they started from the premise that everybody is to be trusted unless an additional reason is known not to trust somebody then it would be impossible to adopt this practice. In any case there are good reasons not to trust people that you know nothing about. People are not by their nature trustworthy.

* Is a hole a thing?

Yes. Even if it is a vacuum it has a reference and can be explained physically. Perhaps it's correct to say that something's being a hole is made true by its relation to something else, i.e. it has to be a hole in something. If you took the something away it would undergo no intrinsic changes of properties but still cease to be a hole. But a hole isn't a relational property. It's a thing that has a certain relational property. So it is still a thing.

* Does your house weigh more when the bath is full?

Yes. Even if you consider the pipes that carry the water to your bath that are in close proximity to your house to be a part of your house, then your house should still be heavier by one bathful of water if you fill the bath, since those pipes will also need to be replenished with water and so the house will get heavier.

* Is saying 'I don't know' better than guessing?

Usually yes. If you guess then there is more risk involved. The utility of guessing and being wrong, multiplied by the probability that you are wrong, subtract the utility of guessing and being right, multiplied by the probability that you are right, is usually lower than the utility of just admitting you don't know.

* Can a good person choose not to go to heaven (should it exist)?

Yes if it is within their power. In fact a good person should choose not to go to heaven since it is an unjust institution and the truly good person would not support it.

* Is refusing to be weak the same as being strong?

No. You can refuse to be weak and refuse to be strong by doing nothing at all. If refusing to be weak made you act in exactly the same way as you would if you were strong it still wouldn't necessarily be the same thing. Somebody who refuses to be weak has a different intentional stance than the person who is (or chooses to be) strong.

* Could a nun disguise herself as a nun?

No. (This answer took me the longest to come to) To disguise yourself as something else is to intend others to believe you to be something other than you actually are. So if a nun pretended to be a nun she would not succeed in getting others to believe she was not what she really is.

I suppose for most of these questions there's still quite a lot to discuss and think about for those who have not previously thought about these subjects or related subjects. What I have written is not enough to convince anybody who disagreed with me as to the answers to those questions. If I could convince them at all then I suppose I would have to qualify what I have written with some quite long and in-depth arguments.

Suppose somebody asks the above question to you. Suppose that the reference of "that" has already been clarified, so perhaps they say something like "I heard that Muse's new album is rubbish. Do you know if that's true?"

I think we can re-phrase the sentence as so:

If that's true, do you know that that's true?

Now let us use the material definition of "if". We can answer in the following 4 ways:

Yes. It is true and I know it's true.
Yes. It is false and I know it is true.
Yes. It is false and I do not know that it is true.
No. It is true and I do not know that it's true.

Two of these answers entail Moore's paradox. The only consistent answers are:

Yes. It is true and I know it's true.
Yes. It is false and I do not know that it is true.

Only the first of these sounds like a reasonable answer to the question. If somebody asked us a question like "Do you know if that's true?" and we answered "Yes", it would be very queer if what we really meant was "It is false and I do not know that it is true." It's also impossible to answer the question except in the affirmative, which would suggest that the speaker asked a pointless question such that the most simple correct answer (Yes/No) could not inform them either way. But it isn't a pointless question and it can be answered in the negative quite sensibly.

So what are they really asking? Here are some interpretations:

1. Is that true?
2. Do you know that that is true?
3. Do you know the truth-value of that? And if so, what is its truth-value?

It's a tough one. If you answered "No", they might reasonably ask you "Is it false, or do you just not know?" If they asked this they would have to admit to having asked an ambiguous question in the first place, one that could be interpreted as either 1 or 2. "Yes" doesn't have the same problem because your assertion that it is true entails that you would assert your knowledge of its truth and your assertion that you know its truth entails that you would assert it is true. 3 is more often than not what they really intend, but we can't give them the benefit of having expressed 3 because they clearly haven't put enough work in to get 3. It's two questions and they only asked one and so should receive only one answer. Grice might argue that we really should interpret them as meaning 3, if that is most likely, but I'm not convinced that somebody wouldn't ask the question meaning only either 1 or 2.

As the only possible answer is "Yes", they should expect us to give that answer beforehand, thus rendering the question pointless. They could ask "Do you know if that's true? Is it true or do you not know?" but then they could have just asked the second of these questions on its own.

This question also reminds me of a few other kinds which can be interpreted differently so regularly that the asker of the question can't really ascertain the real answer from the one give, although they are not quite as sever as the one above. They are of the form:

Do you mind if X?
Are you sure you don't want to X?

For the first of these if you answer "Yes" to a question about whether you mind then you are giving your disapproval for the proposed event or fact. And if you answer "No" then you give your assent to it. But we equate "Yes" with assent and "No" with disapproval so readily that we (the questioner) might hesitate about the answer given wondering if our partner has understood us properly. If the conversation ended with their answer then I suspect both participants would leave unsure of what the other believed. The second example is similar. Because of the way the question is constructed, "Yes" indicates disapproval and "No" indicates assent (although it could mean indecision too). Given that none of us work on the assumption that anybody else is rational, and that they could interpret these questions several ways, we ought to just stop asking them.

Some people argue that when a change in the law is being proposed, a slippery slope may result from the application of the new law. For example, in recent years one of the hottest publicly-contested debates in the UK has been about whether people suffering from painful terminal diseases should be allowed to end their life prematurely, or whether their friends and family can assist them in doing so if they are not physically capable of it. The Assisted Dying for the Terminally-Ill Bill was rejected in 2004. Its proposal was that a person, X, could be assisted by others to commit suicide if the following conditions were satisfied:

1. X is above the age of majority.
2. X is competent. (X needs to sign two declarations of competence, one in the presence of a solicitor.)
3. X has a terminal illness. {Two doctors must both assess that X has less than six months to live).

Now it might be that some people opposed the Bill, while simultaneously finding the applciation of the bill to be positive, ceteris paribus. However, they might also believe in a slippery slope conditional of the form "If this Bill is passed, it will lead to the passing of a more extreme and less desirable bill". Perhaps they only have a low credence in this conditional, but they evaluate the expected utility of the bill being passed and find that the stark probabilities for deeply undesirable outcomes out-weigh the benefits of the bill in the probably case where the slope isn't really as slippery as previously thought. Therefore, even though the bill, in a perfect world, should be implemented, because the world is not perfect its passing will have ill secondary causes or negative externalities.

A slippery slope argument of this sort might contain the following premise:

If the proponents pass their bill they will continue to want more extreme bills passed. Specifically, they don't really believe in this bill but they know it's more likely that they can get their more dangerous bill passed if they pass this first.

So the slippery slope argument seems to me to be more political than ethical. In the case of the assisted suicide bill, the opponents might argue that if it's passed it won't be long before any one of the conditions becomes unnecessary for assisted suicide, or perhaps unassisted suicide will be legalised. So these slippery slopers should take their argument up against the political system. "No more slippery slopes!" Perhaps they think that the general voting population is very naive and can be unconsciously corralled into adopting an extreme view, or perhaps they think it is the MPs who are this naive.

Sometimes we need slippery slopes to get quickly to the correct positions which are so far from the current law. For example, somebody may have argued that men should be allowed to wilfully engage in sex with each other, but only if they're over 25 and have the consent of their neighbours. A hundred years ago this would have been a progressive opinion and would probably have contributed to the situation we have today, which has only very recently given reasonably equal constraints on homosexual sex as to heterosexual sex. Had the person described above been able to view the future and seen what the first bill on extended rights for homosexuals would lead to, they might argue against the passing of that bill. We might still have those laws if everybody took the slippery slope argument too strongly.

I've just finished reading "To Befriend an Emperor" by Betsy Balcombe, and prior to that I read "Billy Ruffian" by David Cordingly. The very end of the latter book deals with Napoleon's surrender to the captain of HMS Bellerophon and the former book deals with his interactions with a teenage girl when he was escorted to St. Helena for his second exile. The transition of his personality is absolutely unbelievable. In just four months he went to commanding the French in one of the most significant battles in history up to that point, to playing Blind Man's Bluff with Betsy and her sister, to the bafflement of the generals who chose to share his exile.

Napoleon has always struck me as somebody who chided excellence, because nobody was as excellent as him. Furthermore he conversed with private soldiers and other non-entities and showed interest in their dreams and accomplishments because they were so far beneath him that they couldn't possibly compete with him. In his time Napoleon brought the greatest generals and monarchs to their knees. In 1807 he humiliated Tsar Alexander and Emperor Frederick William III and forced them to sign his treaty of Tilsit commanding them to abide by his Continental System.

His own marshals, who were the cream of an army comprised of a million soldiers, he rarely had complimentary words for. He knew that most of what they did he could have done better if only he could replicate himself. On Marshal Murat, the swash-buckling cavalry general he said, "In battle he was perhaps the bravest man in the world; left to himself, he was an imbecile without judgment." To Marshal Soult and his other generals before the battle of Waterloo he ironically uttered, "Just because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you think he's a good general. I tell you Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast." When Marshal Massena refused to join him in the one hundred days, when next Napoleon saw him he challenged him on whether Massena would have dared obey the king and gone to war against Napoleon. Even Marshal Ney, veteran of 30 years of war, was destroyed by Napoleon's ire and was never the same again. He famously promised to bring Napoleon to Paris "in an iron cage", and when approaching Napoleon's army declared of his men "They shall fight; I will begin the action myself, and run my sword to the hilt in the breast of the first who hesitates to follow my example." The closer he came to his former commander, the more hesitant he himself became. He finally agreed to side with the Emperor, on the condition that Napoleon no longer seek war. But he had already betrayed too much weakness and Napoleon sent him away and assumed command of Ney's army. I believe this to be the moment that Ney was finally mentally defeated, and paved the way for his erratic performance at Waterloo, his careless attempts to escape capture afterwards and his imminent execution.

There are many other quotes of Napoleon that suggest him to be extremely intolerant of incompetence, which he thought to affect the whole world, and suggest him to have been especially arrogant and horribly aggressive in everything he did:

“An order that can be misunderstood, will be misunderstood.”

“He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.”

“I have never found the limit of my capacity for work.”

“We walk faster when we walk alone.”

“If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.”

“Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.”

“Friendship is only a word, I care for nobody.”

“Circumstances? I make circumstances!”

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

After the Battle of Waterloo he appears to have undergone a remarkable change. he marched with his generals and a few loyal soldiers through France, not knowing what to do next. His army was completely routed and the Prussians had captured many and were marching on Paris. His advisors begged him to try to escape at the port of Rochefort but he insisted he should wait a little longer. The Bellerophon, and two British sloops were guarding the harbour, but it is thought he could have easily evaded them. Then his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, and probably the next most wanted in the family, visited him at Rochefort and tried to persuade Napoleon to go with him to America. Napoleon refused, Joseph escaped and lived without incident in New York for the next 20 years. Napoleon decided to surrender to the British, and naively expected to be given political exile in Britain like his brother Lucien had been given years before. His interactions with the officers and crew of the Bellerophon, who were in awe of the most famous and previously most powerful person in the world, are quite comical. He watched them perform a play and was amused at the larger men wearing women's clothing. He must have wondered how these cross-dressing buffoons could comprise the best sailors in the world.

Furthermore, there is a definite change in Napoleon's comments about Britain. Previously he had been known to call them "Perfidious Albion" and had mocked his generals in the Peninsular War for being so horrendous as to lose to the British. Now he said to the ship's crew, "You have the honour of belonging to the bravest and most fortunate nation in the world", and referring to Britain as "the most generous of my enemies." Possibly these compliments were merely designed to incite mercy in the British who he saw as his only hope for a peaceful retirement. Certainly this theory is consistent with his previous quote, “I would kiss a man's arse if I needed him.” When the Bellerophon docked at Torbay Napoleon would come out of his quarters every day and wave at the crowd who had encircled the ship in little boats just to see the former Emperor. He would look at the crowd through his telescope and proclaimed how beautiful the English women were. He didn't seem to view his defeat as a humiliation, but rather the beginning of a new stage in his life. A truly remorseful and bitter person would have shut themselves away from the baying crowds and simply refused to converse with those who had been his enemies. At the news that he was to be exiled on St. Helena he said:

"I am come here voluntarily to throw myself on the hospitality of your nation, and to claim the rights of hospitality. I am not a prisoner of war. If I were a prisoner of war, you would be obliged to treat me according to the law of nations. But I am come to this country a passenger on board one of your ships of war, after a previous negotiation with the commander"

"What danger could result from my living as a private person in the heart of England under surveillance, and restricted in any way the Government might imagine necessary?"

I'm trying to make allowances for hindsight, but it just seems plain foolish that he would be allowed the same treatment as his harmless brother. Some of the British estimated that Napoleon had caused the death of a person for every minute he had reigned in France, which considering that he reigned for about 15 years is a lot of bloodshed he was responsible for. For a man who had proclaimed that "Death is nothing. But to live defeated and without glory, is to die every day", the prospect of living in a cottage on an intolerably hot island with nothing to do and nobody to see and little news of the outside world was his idea of Hell. Even if he could never be allowed any of his previous power he wanted to at least be some way involved in the world.

When he arrived at St. Helena he commented that “It is not an attractive place. I should have done better to remain in Egypt. By now, I should be Emperor of all the East.” It seems that he was resigned to his fate, and intended to adapt to his new life. On his first day on the island he was introduced to the Balcombe family who he was to live with until his cottage had finished being constructed. He and Betsy, who was 13 when he first met her, began an unlikely friendship, playing childish games and pranks on each other. Before they met, Betsy had proclaimed that she deeply feared Napoleon, for all British children had been taught that Napoleon was a horrible monster who would rather eat them than greet them. On first meeting her he quizzed her on European capitals. When she answered "Petersberg, formerly Moscow" as the capital of Russia, Napoleon asked her, "Who burned Moscow?" It's generally accepted that Moscow was burned by Russians while Napoleon occupied it, in order to diminish any resources he might procure there, but when Betsy proffered the Russians as the arsonists, Napoleon replied, "You know very well that it was I who burnt it." Later she tells us that one day a much younger girl, Miss Legg, was visiting the Balcombe household and was sitting in the garden. Betsy came outside and told her that Napoleon was about to come down the garden path. Miss Legg began trembling and crying at the prospect of meeting the monster, and Betsy went inside to tell Napoleon of her fears. Napoleon then decided to come running out howling at her and making scary faces, which made the girl hysterical and left Napoleon in fits of laughter.

Napoleon used to joke to her that she should marry the son of one of his generals, Les Cases, which infuriated her. One day she decided to get revenge on him, when she, her sister, young Les Cases, old Les Cases and Napoleon were walking in single file along a steep narrow path. She pushed her sister hard until Les Cases ingloriously pushed into Napoleon causing him to slip. At the disgust of such a dishonourable attack on the Emperor, Les Cases pushed Betsy against the wall hurting her.

"`Oh sir! He has hurt me!' `Never mind', replied the Emperor, 'do not cry - I will hold him while you punish him.' And a good punishing he got; I boxed the little man's ears until he begged for mercy; but I would show him none; and at length Napoleon let him go, telling him to run, and that if he could not run faster than I, he deserved to be beaten again. He immediately started off as fast as he could, and I after him, Napoleon clapping his hands and laughing immoderately at our race round the lawn. Les Cases never liked me after this adventure, and used to call me a rude hoyden."

Another time they were playing whist, and Betsy's younger brother took a card representing a Mogul emperor and said "This is you, Bony". Napoleon couldn't understand what was meant by "Bony", and one of his followers translated it as meaning "thin", to which Napoleon laughed and said "I am not at all bony".

These anecdotes are all quite entertaining, but we mustn't distinguish the playful and friendly conversationalist with the violent oppressor of nations. They are the same person. Betsy once asked him about a famous story involving him. In Jaffa he was alleged to have killed hundreds of wounded French soldiers who were too ill to march. Napoleon replied that he had wanted to kill them with opiates, because they would not have lived a day and the Turks would have tortured them when they found them. His Surgeon-general refused to kill them so Napoleon ended up ordering a rearguard to defend them until they had died. But Napoleon clearly didn't feel like telling her about the surrendered inhabitants of Jaffa he had executed. Betsy says of this, and other cruel acts attributed to Napoleon:

"It is true that this dreadful deed will always remain a deep stain upon Napoleon's character, but it would be uncharitable to view it as the indulgence of an innate love of cruelty, for nothing in Bonaparte's history shows the existence of such a vice. It was one of the numerous and sad results of boundless ambition, united to unlimited power. In aiming at gigantic undertakings, he forgot to calculate the waste of human life which the execution of his projects necessarily involved."

This, I think, is a good assessment of Napoleon. In his own words, “War must be made as intense and awful as possible in order to make it short, and thus to diminish its horrors.”

It's also worth mentioning that various authors have written about suspected plots to rescue Napoleon from St. Helena and place him on a South American throne. Some people even thought that he might establish a great South American empire, and Lord Cochrane thought the same, seeing as he attempted to spring the former Emperor from St. Helena but was too late as Napoleon was already dead. Reading these recent works I'm inclined to think that Napoleon never considered his escape possible, or even wanted to set up a new empire. He wanted a peaceful retirement and enjoyed small pleasures. He also suffered small annoyances very severely. The governor of the island infuriated him by having him escorted around the island by armed guards, and even refused permission to the only local piano-tuner to come and fix Napoleon's piano.

In the end it is middle age that resulted in Napoleon's downfall. After the battle of Austerlitz in 1805 he proclaimed “We are granted only a limited time for making war; I give myself another six years, after which even I ought to come to a stop.” Had he heeded his own advice his name might very well still be associated with a modern French Empire, as his troubles really began in 1812 with his disastrous invasion of Russia. On St. Helena he used to re-enact his past battles with chess pieces to determine how they would have developed had he tried something else. I wouldn't say he was consumed with regret, but to some extent he knew that he could have shaped the world much differently.

“What I did is immense. What I had decided to do, and what I had projected were still more so.”

I've heard this phrase used so many times now that I thought it was worth commenting on. The phrase always goes something like this:

"I don't regret anything, but if I could go back in time and do it again I would do it differently."

Isn't the second part of that sentence actually the very definition of "regret"? When people say this I wonder if there are any thoughts in their head which they are expressing. It's not just the case of reporting a false belief, but of reporting nothing. There is just no content of that sentence at all, at least not in any possible world.

I've been thinking recently about how one could write a story that tied up the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid and the Epic Cycle. I would want to somehow include everything that doesn't contradict with something of higher value that has been written about the Trojan war, as well as contain some historical perspective. I think there is also a little bit of room for creativity, and was considering a storyline whereby Diomedes is responsible for the death of Achilles. Upon the death of Penthisilea it is said that Thersites, Diomedes' cousin, laughed at Achilles when he fell in love with the dead Amazon queen. Achilles killed him, and Diomedes was so enraged that he challenged Achilles to a duel but the other Greek heroes intervened and prevented their two best warriors fighting each other.

Now let us bring in some Shakespeare. In Troilus and Cressida, Shakespeare tells us that Cressida, the daughter of Calchas who defected from the Trojans to the Greeks, betrayed Troilus with Diomedes. I think a good story (and one I would use with Helen as well) is that she loved both Troilus and Diomedes (for Helen I would say she loved both Menelaus and Paris), and just hoped that one would not know about the other (although in Shakespeare Troilus does fight Diomedes about the issue). We are told in one of the original texts (Sophocles) that Achilles ambushes Troilus and his sister Polyxena, kills Troilus and mutilates his corpse, an act which is punished by his imminent death where Paris shoots him in his vulnerable heel. I think a viable storyline could be one where Diomedes and Cressida, jointly seeking revenge on Achilles, organise an ambush against him when he goes to meet Polyxena. It is said that Paris and his brother Deiphobus were both involved, but it would be interesting to imply the existence of a mystery "third gunman".

Plus this story would help reinforce the innocence of Polyxena. Perhaps her love for Achilles was genuine and she kept their relationship a secret. Somehow Cressida comes to learn of it and informs Diomedes, who organises the ambush with his former enemies. This would constitute a major twist on the original story because Diomedes is often portrayed as the most honourable and brave of the Greeks, but at the same time there is clearly a one-sided rivalry with Achilles. He could have felt resentment that Achilles was considered the better fighter and more crucial to the war effort than himself, who contributed considerably more leadership to the invasion than Achilles, who was a bit-part player who fought when he liked.

Furthermore the Little Iliad states that Odysseus attempted to kill Diomedes on the night that they stole the Palladium from Troy. This is one of the more unbelievable stories about Odysseus that doesn't necessarily fit with what we know about the rest of his character. (Although you can certainly make it. Odysseus has been depicted by some as a man of no morals who would do anything to further his own cause. It's quite relevant to this position that of all the Ithicans who left for Troy, he was the only one that returned.) In my story it might be that Odysseus teased a confession out of Diomedes for his part in the death of Achilles, and a fight ensued. Perhaps Diomedes defeats him and makes him swear not to reveal it to anybody else. This could also be one of the causes of Odysseus' later guilt about his responsibility for Achilles, and why he decided to embark on a quest for penance after his return to Ithaca.

I want to talk at some point about the game theory of investing a lot of resources into a lottery that effectively owes you nothing. Two examples of these are a) the Swoopo auctioneering site, where players can have already invested $100 in buying a product and yet have no claim on it yet, and b) endurance contests, such as those in the USA (recently discontinued) where players try to touch a car for the longest and the one who do so wins the car. In the former, if you've invested a $100 in a product should your strategy from then on differ from somebody who has invested nothing in it? In the latter it seems fairly obvious that the best strategy is to either leave early and minimise your losses, or intend to never leave. Any strategy whereby you invest a lot of resources into it and eventually get nothing is a terrible strategy. But clearly lots of people end up doing this. Maybe they were all wrong about something (i.e. they believed they had the ability to last 48 hours and they didn't), or perhaps they knew there was a gamble involved and that they lost the gamble. These are interesting cases, and I think there may be serious justification to ban this sort of event as it tricks players via the Sorites paradox into giving away their net worth, or risking everything. It's a lot like chasing losses, but instead more like chasing winnings. Very curious cases that I think are worthy of discussion. Perhaps the only solution is a Leviathan figure to ban such competitions.

They can be taken to ridiculous extremes as well. Somebody on the 2+2 forum suggested an adaptation of a Swoopo auction. Suppose an item starts at $50, and everytime somebody bids (costing 60c), 10c is actually taken off the price. If the price reaches 0 then it just keeps going, so that the eventual winner could win the item and the cash. The longer these auctions go on the higher the prize actually is. It could theoretically get to the point where the entire world has invested all the world's money and the last person with any money left wins the whole lot. Very curious, and very dangerous.

I just got this e-mail from the Church of Scientology:

Dear BDT,
We are surveying Scientologists to find out how bright they are. Make out the following.

Thank you.

Kate Clarke

Consultant

Dianetics and Scientology Information Center

Clearwater, Florida

(727) 214-5743

QUESTIONNAIRE

Fill this out and send it in.

1. What is the most certain thing you can get about yourself?

2. What is the most certain thing you can get about your ability to communicate?

3. What is the most certain thing you can get about your ability to work?

4. What is the most certain thing you can get about your ability to help others?

5. What is the most certain thing you can get about children?

6. What is the greatest certainty that you can get about groups in general?

7. What is the greatest certainty that you have about mankind in general?

8. What is the most certain thing that you can get about animals?

9. What is your highest certainty about the physical universe?

10. What is your greatest certainty on the subject of spirits?

11. What is the greatest certainty that you can get about God?

12. What is your greatest certainty about life?

13. What is the greatest certainty that you have about Scientology?

14. What is the greatest certainty that you have about L. Ron Hubbard?

15. What is the most certain thing you can be certain of in present time?

16. What is the greatest certainty that you have about the future?

-------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not entirely sure what these questions are actually asking. Some of them are so badly worded and the whole e-mail is terribly presented. Part of me wants to know what the Church Of Scientology think the correct answers to these questions are. I suspect if I answered them honestly they would regard me as not very bright. If there was a promise of feedback from this then I would fill it in but as there isn't it isn't worth responding. These people are notorious for hounding you until the end of the Earth, so it's not worth provoking them.

Imagine a centipede game is being played by perfectly rational agents. As has been well-established, the first player reasons using backward induction, and also reasons that their opponent will use backward induction, and therefore to maximise their own utility they are forced to end the game immediately, taking 1 util for themselves and none for their opponent, even when it was possible that they receive (about) 100 utils each had they co-operated.

Here's the question. If the first player didn't end the game immediately, the second player would have good evidence that the first player plans to co-operate for some time to come. If the first player made the co-operative decision on the first turn, then they will on most of the rest since they are identical scenarios. Therefore the second player ought also to co-operate. Even if the other player decides to end the game prematurely in the future for no discernible reason, you still make more than you would by playing an ultra-defensive strategy. However there still is some kind of paradox looming, as the end-game will still be in the minds of the players. I haven't worked this one out yet.

Centipede could be one of those rare games that turns up in game theory where it pains the player to be rational, just as Lewis thought the Newcomb's game paid off those less rational 1-boxers. One problem with this game is about knowledge. In the centipede game, your opponent knows that you are "rational", therefore you cannot choose to play irrationally because it is a given fact already how you will play. Hence decision theory of this sort becomes ironically indecisive and determined. We need to use the concept of common belief rather than common knowledge. In Centipede, if you play the co-operative move you also falsify the other player's belief, which will cause them to play differently. Not irrationally. It just happens that their behaviour is identical to the behaviour of an irrational agent, but not their thought process. This is a phenomenon that is observed very frequently in the world of professional poker.

Suppose CBR, common belief in rationality, and suppose that Backwards Induction is essential for rationality. My earliest instinct then is that, given both players have CBR, if the first chooses to play co-operatively, the second player no longer has CBR, i.e. he comes to believe that the first player cannot be using backwards-induction and is therefore irrational. However, this cannot be the case. There are players who do use backwards induction but who still co-operate because they expect or suspect their opponent of being able to sympathise with them. So when the first player co-operates, essentially the other player still cannot tell whether the first is using BI or not. Like in poker, when an opponent makes a play you can only tell that they are not an intermediate, they could still either be an expert or a beginner.