Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8436832" data-attributes="member: 71699">The concept in the OP seems to me distinct from game theory. My understanding is that it relates to a theory advanced by a professor of history and literature of religion. My current reading of the OP is that<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">it advances an ontology: games can be classified into finite and infinite</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">said classification decides (or is decided by) their inclusion or non-inclusion of end conditions</li> </ol>More generally, it argues that there will be mismatches between players who understand themselves to be in a game where the goal is the continuation of play ('infinite'), and players who understand themselves to be in a game where a goal can be achieved and will end the game when it is achieved ('finite').The latter type of goal is generally thought of as winning, but the destruction of the game world - with all players losing - would also do. Which scratches the surface of problems that I start to feel are too numerous to get into. Still, I am glad the OP drew attention to this idea.</blockquote>