You can't win; you can't break even; you can't even win the game?

[John_DiFool]

Called Ginsberg’s Theorem (which apparently was originally coined in a thermodynamics context, not a political or philosophical one), it typically goes:

You can’t win.
You can’t break even.
You can’t even quit the game.

Freeman’s Commentary adds:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit:
[INDENT]
Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.[/INDENT]

Other views can be assumed here-nihilism assumes that you can’t even quit the game, at all.

If we focus on the philosophical side of things (vs. the physics side), where do you fall? Note poll is multiple choice. Me-the entire 2nd half of my life has been devoted to proving that the third adage is true, even if I don’t exactly call it “mysticism” per se.

[Moonlitherial]

My husband and his best friend used to present this to me repeatedly. What I’ve discovered is that although it is true what you can do is create another game that they cannot win, cannot break even and cannot quit.

So I have accepted Ginsberg’s theorem and have lost that game but moved on

[AHunter3]

You can reprogram the game and change it into a different game with different rules.

[tdn]

There’s always a way to win.

[Strinka]

I never really understood what it means to quit the game. It always seemed to me that you could quit the game by dying.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Strinka

I never really understood what it means to quit the game. It always seemed to me that you could quit the game by dying.

Dying is just an increase in local entropy, though - part of the same game. What is death, if not the collapse of a highly ordered system (the functioning organism) into a less-ordered state?

[msmith537]

@John_DiFool

Called

Other views can be assumed here-nihilism assumes that you can’t even quit the game, at all.

Nihilism is based on the assumption you don’t have to play.
Fatalism is based on the assumption that you can’t know the rules of the game, you just have to accept the outcome.
Nietzsche based his philosophy on the assumption that there is a inherent conflict between a small number of superstars who play the game well and masses of scrubs who don’t, but through playing as a team, can subvert the nature of the game to corrupt the superstars into believing that the rules of the game and the talent needed to win are ‘evil’.

@AHunter3

You can reprogram the game and change it into a different game with different rules.

Philosophy of The Matrix?

@Strinka

I never really understood what it means to quit the game. It always seemed to me that you could quit the game by dying.

Some of us can’t.

[Zebra]

I don’t believe in the no win scenario.

[Malthus]

@John_DiFool

Called Ginsberg’s Theorem (which apparently was originally coined in a thermodynamics context, not a political or philosophical one), it typically goes:

You can’t win.
You can’t break even.
You can’t even quit the game.

Freeman’s Commentary adds:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s theorem. To wit:
[INDENT]
Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.[/INDENT]

Other views can be assumed here-nihilism assumes that you can’t even quit the game, at all.

If we focus on the philosophical side of things (vs. the physics side), where do you fall? Note poll is multiple choice. Me-the entire 2nd half of my life has been devoted to proving that the third adage is true, even if I don’t exactly call it “mysticism” per se.

I’d say mysticism is based on accepting that you are the game, and that winning and losing are really the same. Buddhism is based on the assumption that you can (and should) quit the game.

[Peanuthead]

Cheat!

[TriPolar]

I won a long time ago. So I quit the game. Why would I play just to break even anyway?

[Enuma_Elish]

I’m gonna take my ball and go home!

[Inigo_Montoya]

As summed up at the end of The Life of Brian: “You’ve come from nothing, you go back to nothing. What have you lost? NOTHING!”

So: You can’t NOT break even.

[Machine_Elf]

@msmith537

@AHunter3

You can reprogram the game and change it into a different game with different rules.

Philosophy of The Matrix?

I was going to say Philosophy of the Kobayashi Maru.

[Rachellelogram]

By reading this, you’ve just lost the game. That’s one game *nobody *can ever win.

[cochrane]

@AHunter3

You can reprogram the game and change it into a different game with different rules.

James Tiberius Kirk, is that you?

[billfish678]

@Mr.Excellent

Dying is just an increase in local entropy, though - part of the same game. What is death, if not the collapse of a highly ordered system (the functioning organism) into a less-ordered state?

As a borderline slob living with a borderline horder, I think the local entropy will decrease if we should both pass at the same time

God help those poor souls who will have to deal with all this shit

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Mr.Excellent

Dying is just an increase in local entropy, though - part of the same game. What is death, if not the collapse of a highly ordered system (the functioning organism) into a less-ordered state?

But what is “you” (meaning the “you” expressed in the theorem) but a “highly ordered system”–a functioning organism?

Therefore, by dying “you” can quit the game because neither “increasing local entropy” nor anything else matters one whit for “you” after you’re dead.

[Larry_Borgia]

It is just about Thermodynamics. It may have a few other applications but it is not generally applicable to all aspects of life, the universe, and everything.

[StusBlues]

Michael Jackson’s commentary forthwith.