The Finite/Infinite Game: A New Way to View Jacob/Nemesis Conflict
Ever since the first season of Lost many have speculated that what is happening on the Island is a game. We were given a reference to backgammon early on and have seen many games featured in several episodes. I have been avoiding doing a ‘game’ theory for Lost because I could not come up with a new angle to approach it. But a book I ‘m reading, “Finite and Infinite Games” by James P. Carse, has suggested a new and unique way to look at Lost as a game.
Before I get to the Jacob/Nemesis conflict I’ll need to talk about finite and infinite games and their differences. First of all, the word ‘game’ is not intended to be used in the way that most people would use it. In the context I’ll be using it the word ‘game’ can be any activity that a person engages in with another person. So driving a car or even going to work is a game.
Now a finite game will have a definite begining and will end when a winner is declared. The winner becomes known when the other players all agree that the winner has met all the conditions for winning the game. As a reward the winner recieves a title acknowledging the accomplishment. Finite games are played to be won.
Infinite games on the other hand have no definite begining or ending. They do not have a winner and the purpose of play in a infinite game is to continue play.
The one thing that both finite and infinite games have in common is that players choose freely to play. A player may also choose to remove themselves from play. A player who MUST play a game CAN NOT play a game.
Finite games are limited by boundries both in space and time. They also have a list of limitations on the choices and actions a player can make and take within the game. In other words the rules of the game. The rules are the conditions that all players agree to play under and will be used to determine the winner.
The rules of a finite game can not change during the course of play. If they do then the finite game ends and a new game begins. But in an infinite game, since it can not end, the rules must change when they threaten to end the game.
The rules have no effect unless all players involved freely agree to abide by them.
THERE IS NO RULE THAT REQUIRES THAT THE RULES BE OBEYED.
Now here is a way to view Jacob’s and Nemesis’ conflict taken into account what is laid out above. For quite sometime now Jacob and Nemesis have had a conflict in their philosophy about people. Their conflict and coexistence on the Island is a finite game. The rules that they are living by allow Jacob to bring people to the Island. These same rules restrict Jacob and Nemesis from killing each other. Nemesis wants to end the game but does not want to simply remove himself from play. He also does not want to change the rules because this would require Jacob to agree to the change, if Nemesis changed the rules without Jacob’s agreement then the game is invalidated, and if the game is invalidated there is no winner. The third option is that Nemesis just disobeys the rules. This is what he does and that is his loophole.
Now an infinite game has been taking place on the Island also. This game is being played by the Island and the people who inhabit the Island. The rules for this game would appear to be the conditions by which the Island allows people to live on it. Jacob and Nemesis are included in this infinite game also. The Island may have an interest in the outcome of their game and will manipulate the rules in order to ensure that neither of them definately wins and ensure that their disagreement will continue. The Island’s responce to Nemesis’ disobedience of the rules is yet to be seen.
Hi Achalli, your ‘game’ theory really turned out to be quite spectacular.
It greatly helps to understand the difference between finite and infinite game theory. I do believe that if we are to apply the ‘game’ theory, that I would agree with how you have described that it is a finite game within an infinite game. I believe this to be an accurate assessment.
Nemesis did break the rules by finding a ‘loophole’, and I believe we will see the repercussions of his choice. I think Jacob outlined it nicely when he said “they’re coming’.
In terms of ‘the island’ itself, I do see it as having ‘consciousness’. I also feel that ‘the island’ has its own powers and clearly a vested interest in the outcome.
I know that everyone is wanting to see a conclusion to what has occurred, but I am hesitant in saying that it will be the type of conclusion we were expecting.
This appears to be a game/war that even if resolution occurs, that it will continue to ‘reincarnate’ itself once again, if that makes any sense. Perhaps, next time around, those circumstances might be very different, though.
Thanks for presenting the finite/infinite game theory and applying it to Lost.
It is a truly enjoyable read!
Glad you enjoyed it Dabs! The infinite game will continue, the Island will see to that. Not so much as reincarnate but more reinvent itself. By definition that is what an infinite game does. And there are more finite games going on the Island besides Jacob vs. Nemesis. Their game just happens to be the most important to the Island.
Hi Achalli, I’d like to hear more about who and what else might be playing what as it sounds quite interesting.
I think in terms of who has more importance, I would put my money on ‘the island’ and/or whomever/whatever controls it.
I understand your usage of reinvent and it is the correct term in this case. More on those thoughts later.
Interesting, and you could be right, but there are games with unvoluntary players as well, I guess.
Those who MUST play CAN NOT play. A game with involuntary players is not a game. The Losties had a chance to leave the game but they chose to come back. The O6 by getting on Ajira and Sawyer’s orange juice rebellion (I wish I could remember who came up with that term because it is perfect for what happened on the sub.)
Achalli, you sound a tiny bit dogmatic. 😉
For sure there are players who have no choice but to continue to play. Think of participants in Russian roulette. Think of macroeconomic models based on game theory. Not everyone has a realistic choice to leave the table.
That was supposed to be microeconomic. I can’t type tonight. Need to sleep.
Achalli, I really like this a lot…
BEN: I stole her as a baby from an insane woman. She’s a pawn, nothing more. She means nothing to me. I’m not coming out of this house. So if you want to kill her, go ahead and do it–
Ben then proceeds to say, “He changed the rules.”
So, do you think that Alex was killed and removed from the game because she was not a voluntary participant?
Hi elsewhere, I know that Achalli will answer your question from his perspective, and I would just like to add a little bit from a more general viewpoint, than a specific one.
During the conversation Widmore & Ben have at the submarine when Widmore is leaving ‘the island’, he states to Ben the following: You wouldn’t sacrifice Alex. Ben responds by saying to him: You’re the one who wanted her dead, Charles, not the Island. Widmore follows up by saying: I hope you’re right, Benjamin, because if you aren’t, and it is the Island that wants her dead, she’ll be dead.
Charles points out from his perspective, ‘the island’ would be responsible for whether or not Alex would be allowed to live or not.
This might be an indication that as Achalli points out, ‘the island’ does have part in the ‘rule’ of the overall game.
Your specific question, is an excellent one! And, it also substantiates the theory of ‘game’ which Achalli has presented and aptly describes.
I certainly cannot state if Alex is a ‘pawn’ or not. Achalli would know far better than I.
Ilie, I didn’t mean to sound dogmatic. Anyways, everyone has a choice no matter what they are doing. True freewill is the power to say no and take the consequences. My post ‘Jacob’s Choice’ goes into this in more depth.
Carse also handles the point you raise in his book. He asserts that finished players often are unaware hat they have a choice. Whatever a person does in life they do so by choice.
The ability of Nemesis to say no to the rules and disobey them is his loophole.
First of all, Dabs, I like your response. The Island is playing an infinite game with its inhabitants and is changing the rules whenever current rules threatened to end play.
Elsewhere, There are many finite games in play on the Island. But not all inhabitants are involved in the games. Alex was not a part of the game between Ben and Widmore. A person can not play in a game without freely choosing to do so. Widmore drawing Alex into his and Ben’s game was the rule change that Ben referred to.
Ach said “A person can not play in a game without freely choosing to do so. Widmore drawing Alex into his and Ben’s game was the rule change that Ben referred to.”
Interesting but actually Ben changed that game by disobeying Widmore, not killing Rousseau, and the not killing Alex…which ended up happening anyways…
Game can only be a part of it and it will have to end or at a minimum provide a new winner…
Nice work, regardless 🙂
Nope, not everyone has a choice. Think of paralyzed patients who have to live a life (=game) regardless of whether they’d rather die or not.
I really like this.
Its certain that there is a theme involving the snub of ones fate.
But the person has to believe it on the isalnd.
Things just dont happen…people have to make them happen.
I see it like this. With the others, and the frieghter, and the Dharma Initiative…what is the one thing we see occur over and over…none of them can stop the Losties from doing what they want.
Sure opposition can kill people…but that doesnt mean that they stop them. They return from the dead. They walk when they should not able to.
When Locke is in the jungle in earlier seasons, there are several times when he feels like he cannot walk…like he is again paralyzed.
Sometimes he snaps himself out, sometimes it takes a young boy, who could possibly turn out to be either of the two gentlemen from the opening of the incidnt, a wrinkle in time, or even a monster…but once he starts believing…well, I believe this may be an example of Locke saying NO to what SHOULD be…
Achalli, great thoughts here…I love your ideas on freedom on Lost…
Hey there im new here been reading for a long time so excited to read these theories!
I really like this theory.Im off to read up on something you could connect with that also and ill be back!
Hi everyone. Thanks for your comments. I just want to let you all know that I will be able to respond to all of you later this evening. This isone time I wish work wasn’t necessary. You really all providing me with great comments.
Darn phone keypad.:)
Great Post Achalli, lots of good stuff here. I’d like to commen the “A player who MUST play a game CAN NOT play a game” portion. If you think of the finite game as a game of backgammon being played by Jacob and MIB, those two would be considered the players of the game. While those two are the players, the rest of the people on the island would be the pawns. While Jacob and MIB have a choice of whether to play or not, the pawns do not.
There was an example above regarding the O6 choosing to come back to the island but did what other choices did they have? None of them came back to the island because they wanted to with the exception of possibly Jack. Jack was on a downward spiral with aloholism and loosing his medical liscense, Kate was at risk of losing Aaron and wanted to find Claire, Hurley was wanted for murder and was already living in a nut house, Sun wanted to find her Husband, and Sayid was “arrested”. Ben is a major pawn in this game and he manipulated Jack, Kate, and Sun into going back to the island and we saw Jacob have a direct manipulation to get Hurley and Sayid back to the island.
So, I do not believe that they really had much of a choice to come back to the island, and if they did it was easily manipulated.
I believe that the game is between Jacob and MIB with the rest of the characters acting as Pawns, and who knows, maybe the island acts as a referee. When one side breaks the rules, the island does what it can to make the game fair again.
Achalli, I just wanted to let you know that your theory has inspired me with a great deal of thought.
What you have presented is, the ‘ultimate game theory’ and have taken it to the next level. A ‘Universal’ level, which makes it even more plausible in a variety of ways, and fits in nicely and adds further meaning to the overall story arc.
Jenius, I’m glad you enjoyed this post. You may want tocheck out my post entitled “Jacob’s Choice.” It is a good companion piece to this post. Just click on my screen name to pull up all the posts I have done. I suggest that you check out all the past posts of others commenting hear as they all have very interesting posts also.
Murphiavelli, first I love your screen name. You are correct in your statement about Ben changing the rules first. But when he did that the current game between them was invalidated and a new game began. It was this second game that Widmore invalidated by in solving Alex.
AES, I really like your take on this. Every person is in charge of themselves and are the only one who truly controls there life. I know from past discussions we’ve had that we both share an interest in a certain, rather thick book which is the foundation of this post in a way.
Crysis101, I like your thought about the Island being a referee. As for the O6 going back they all chose to go back. They all had different reasons but they did chose. Every single person has a choice.
Ilie, even paralyzed patients have a choice. They can choose to let their disability to rule them or they can rise above it and not let it stand in their way.
Dabs, I consider it a great compliment to know that a post of mine inspired someone else to think about a theory of their own. I can’t wait to see what you come up with.
Achalli, your post inspired me, but not to write my own theory!
You have taken the ‘game theory’ to a whole other level, and applied that to Lost in a way which has never made more sense.
Applying your exceptional work, to other key elements which are happening, makes much more sense to me now and the overall story.
That’s what is great about this concept. It can be applied to almost any situation in Lost. You will find it in everyday life also. Jacobs vs. Nemesis is the most prominant example out of many on the Island.