<em>Would a prediction be accurate if the person about to act becomes aware of the prediction prior to the act itself? </em>
This is a classic problem of the deterministic approach to action. If psychology was perfect, it is likely that this would enable psychologists to predict how a person is going to act in any situation. It would also make psychologists able to predict when this act would take place. However, for such a prediction to be useful, the psychologist would have to keep this information from the subject. Otherwise, the knowledge of the prediction could potentially make the person act in a different way, rendering the prediction obsolete.
<em>Does the fact that a prediction can be known in advance disprove the possibility of predicting accurately or is that fact just one more antecedent condition? </em>
The fact that a prediction can be known in advance does disprove the possibility of predicting accurately. The moment a prediction is made, the prediction alters the state of the components that were necessary to know in order to make a prediction. Therefore, the prediction becomes obsolete as the action might or might not happen in the way that was previously predicted.
Queen Elizabeth the first.
Answer:
the last one seems most plausible
Explanation:
The behalf that Wiesel accepts the Nobel prize is on literature.
Macduff's son is a character that even though, his age is not stated in the play, is assumed to be young. The killing of this young character and especially the way that happened shows Macbeth's kingdom cruelty. The murderers call this boy "Egg" while he tried to defend himself and defend his mother who was later killed too.
