The body of work we call "Greek mythology" dates from around 900 BCE or so. Even then they were considered to be legends and fables. 500 BCE is way too late for any of those events to have taken place.
Again, the box in WoA was never said to be Pandora's, and "box" is a mistranslation of her artifact in any case...it was a jar.
Quote:
I can see what the author of WoA was trying to do -- basically the same thing Jim Shooter tried to do with the New Universe "white event", establish a point of divergence with real history so that everything before the titular event is unchanged and the author(s) only have to concern themselves with subsequent events. The problem is that the City universe was just way too weird a place well before said event, going back at least 14,000 years in canon.| Although I must admit it's as good an explanation for the huge surge in supers after Statesman as anything else. |
If I were telling the story, I would explain the "surge in supers after Statesman" as a cultural phenomenon. I'd say that metahumans (etc.) were always present in the population but didn't embrace the flamboyance of superheroes, wearing costumes and deliberately building an image and such. They were rare enough that the average person probably never saw one and didn't believe the "tall tales"...until Statesman deliberately dialed it up to 11 in modern times with mass media. It's been stated too that Paragon City and the Isles have way more supers than most areas so to some extent it's even a localized phenomenon.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Quote:
Well, there are all those ley lines... plus the fact that after the Rikti War, Statesman called for heroes to come to Paragon and help rebuild (never mind the fact that the entire world had been hit by the Rikti - but we all knew that Statesman was a jerk already |
Originally Posted by Venture
...It's been stated too that Paragon City and the Isles have way more supers than most areas so to some extent it's even a localized phenomenon.
|
).Joking aside, you have some good points, but there's just so much real world logic to them! I guess it's a matter of taste whether or not you like a "White Event" or something like one guy being exposed to the public via media gradually changing things...
p.s. I guess I typed this then forgot to hit submit for... an hour or so.
Paragon still had the crashed Rikti Mothership to worry about, in Statesman's defense. He was assembling the heroes in case the Rikti got it operational again. Sure, he can punch motherships and bomber vessels down solo, but they're not worth xpz anymore because they're gray...and it's pretty destructive when he does it his way.
Recluse being able to summon all villains to him was just crummy writing. "Oh gee, if I join Arachnos I have the opportunity to be a subservient minion to Lord Recluse my whole life! Huzzah for villainy!"
Pfft, a real villain would've skipped out of Mercy on day one and gone to subjugate some 3rd world country nobody cares about under their thumb. Destined One Program? Only idiots like Black Scorpion would buy that load.
Quote:
While Venture is frequently right, his posting style also rubs a lot of people the wrong way. They don't want to like him, but admit he knows what he's talking about.
|
Originally Posted by Felderburg
I've seen this sentiment a lot. I don't get it.
|
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
This does not compute. "Infinity of infinities?" Now THERE'S a phrase that's utter nonsense. You can't get MORE than infinity. It's like when people say something is "very unique" or "extremely unique": "unique" can't take adverbs because you can't be MORE unique than unique -- it's already maxed out at the ultimate end of the scale. Same thing for "infinity."|
Originally Posted by Durakken
...we're talking about writing the same number at the same time and that would take an infinity of infinities... and when you get that low, you've lost any credibility to say that it is possible in any sense of the practical usage of the word.
|
Stephen Hawking once remarked that the math tells us that out in the universe somewhere there could be a singularity which is burping out exact copies of everything we know. My car, your mother, Sam's computer mouse. That's with our physics in our universe, not a fictional universe where everything is just made up.
The City of Heroes universe doesn't have to follow your rules, no matter how much you stamp your feet and insist it do so. From all evidence we have, the CoH multiverse could just as likely be an example of Sam's convergent theory as it is your divergent theory.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
It isn't. Infinity comes in more than one size in higher math. Frinstance the set of integers is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers, but the infinity of the set of integers (countable) is smaller (has lower cardinality) than the infinity of the set of real numbers (uncountable). It gets even worse later I believe on but that's above my pay grade. | "Infinity of infinities?" Now THERE'S a phrase that's utter nonsense. You can't get MORE than infinity. |
Consider the parallel universe scenario. There are an infinite number of universes but they're countable (probably), and every one of them contains an infinite number of points, which are uncountable. Does your head hurt yet?
He has a point on the convergent/divergent thing. Personally I don't think it matters because I don't want either kind around.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Quote:
I wouldn't credit the original designers (Rick Dakan et al) with that much forethought. I don't mean that to be snarky towards them, just that the tale grows in the telling, and with so many hands in it, naturally things get confusing.|
Originally Posted by Venture
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
Yes, it's almost as if they were deliberately trying to keep continuity hounds off-balance. |
Quote:
| Once upon a time, Maria Jenkins' in-game bio said she was Maiden Justice, the female hero who worked alongside Statesman at the beginning of his career. Manticore started posting about Maiden Justice being Monica Richter, Ms. Liberty's grandmother and Statesman's wife, people pointed out the contradiction...and look what changed. |
Quote:
|
N.B. that this wasn't even a statement made by a character -- it was an out-of-character piece of narration, "Word of God" if you will. It still got thrown under the bus. The official explanation was that the bio was mistaken, but you really have to be pretty simple to think it wasn't a retcon. (Proof here being the Unfortunate Implications that resulted in the Praetorian version of the story. Someone wasn't thinking things all the way through.) If such a narrative statement is subject to revision then it's hard to say that statements made by characters would somehow carry more force, when logically they are even more provisional. Protip: the GM (or "devs" when they go pro) is never wrong. Even when he is. The guy behind the screen has the first, last and only word about what is or is not true about his creation. Fictional reality is subject to change without notice. |
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
The mathematical usage of "infinite"' doesn't apply to this discussion, because we're talking about the lay term for "unlimited" or "immeasurable." For all intents and purposes, those are completely separate terms and concepts that happen to be homophones.|
Originally Posted by Venture
It isn't. Infinity comes in more than one size in higher math. Frinstance the set of integers is infinite, and so is the set of real numbers, but the infinity of the set of integers (countable) is smaller (has lower cardinality) than the infinity of the set of real numbers (uncountable). It gets even worse later I believe on but that's above my pay grade.
Consider the parallel universe scenario. There are an infinite number of universes but they're countable (probably), and every one of them contains an infinite number of points, which are uncountable. Does your head hurt yet? |
Infinite universes in a fictional setting are, by definition, uncountable. There are not more atoms in those universes than there are universes, because they are both infinite. Which should hurt your head right back.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Quote:
For some reason, I am stupidly excited that you didn't type "for all intensive purposes", which is such a common mistake that my eye twitches when I see it.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
For all intents and purposes
|
Don't mind me, getting a little grammar on over here in the weirdo corner. Move along, move along, nothing to see here...
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
I...I used to say that. *Hides himself shamefully in a dark corner of the room*
|
Originally Posted by Aggelakis
For some reason, I am stupidly excited that you didn't type "for all intensive purposes", which is such a common mistake that my eye twitches when I see it.
Don't mind me, getting a little grammar on over here in the weirdo corner. Move along, move along, nothing to see here... |
Quote:
|
Durakken takes focus: An explanation is right here for Nature Spirits http://www.fbsavanguard.org/wiki/Paragon_Times/20050615 |
Much of what we know remains obscure, to be sure, and highly secretthose who oppose us would very much like to know the extent of our knowledgebut the short version is that we are facing nature spirits who, in the earliest periods of human existence, evolved beyond control of the elements and became gods who needed worship and devotion from mortals. These gods formed pantheons that aligned themselves with the first human tribes in northern Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.This may or may not apply to the Greco-Roman gods, but it doesn't sound like it applies to the Norse/Germanic, Indian, Japanese, etc. etc. pantheons at all, just those involved in this conflict. I don't think this can be used as a source for a sweeping "all gods are nature spirits" claim, especially since she says "short form".
Dec out.
Quote:
I keep hoping the cooperative nature of that Wiki will help temper Durakken's tendency to take his own spin on things as fact.
|
DumpleBerry sees in my head: So the LoreWiki is going to be "City of Heroes and Villains and Going Rogue Lore, according to Durakken." |
Dec out.
Oh, forgot to mention this...
When consulting the experts about the nature of this enemy, this reporter encountered a variety of answers concerning rogue gods and demonic spirits.But they give Azuria's view because the article's about her. We don't get to hear any of the other "variety of answers".
Dec out.
Quote:
So, you're saying that you've told people "That's an idiotic thing to say!" and they've had a sudden epiphany and understood their wrongness and embraced the truth of your position? I have a hard time imagining that, because "that's idiotic" is not an argument that's very epiphany-enduing. If anything, it's actually counter-productive because it has a higher chance of entrenching people in their position, even if that position may actually be wrong.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
It does when I'm talking to people who actually understand the sentence.
|
Then again, judging by your posts, tact is not one of your strong points.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Actually, the definition of "countable" within the context of sets is whether a set is discrete or continuous (provided I have my terminology correctly). As long as the set is comprised of clearly defined units with clear understanding of what would be "next," it's countable. That doesn't stop it from being infinite. In this regard, the infinite universes should be countable, because they're separate entities that don't flow into each other.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Infinite universes in a fictional setting are, by definition, uncountable. There are not more atoms in those universes than there are universes, because they are both infinite. Which should hurt your head right back.
|
Furthermore, "infinity of infinities" is actually a very easy construct to make, both mathematically and logically. In mathematics, something as simple as two-dimensional space is an infinity of infinities, because you have one infinite linear space, each "point" of which corresponds to another unique infinite linear space. Hence, you have infinity made up of infinities.
Within the context of multiverse science, this could be explained in a number of ways, the easiest being dimension and time. If we assume time to be linear and infinite, then each universe in itself is comprised of one infinite timeline. However, we have an infinite number of universes in the multiverse, each defined by an infinite timeline, which gives us what is, for all intents and purposes, a two-dimensional space when it comes to any particular point of reality. If you have a snapshot of one moment in one universe, it's defined by WHEN it was taken and WHICH UNIVERSE it was taken from.
That's assuming the different universes share a synchronised time, of course.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Venture,
You are mistaken about the Maria Jenkins and Monica Richter thing. Not about what happened, but how it works from a canon point of view...
Tier 1 = top tier = Always right
game said - Maria Jenkins is Maiden Justice <- T1 canon
Dev said - Monica Richter is Maiden Justice <- T3 canon
At this point the Dev was wrong. Monica Richter was not Maiden Justice.
The game was changed and now...
game said - Monica Richter is Maiden justice <- T1 canon
After that point it is canon.
If the game says different things about the same thing.
Rule 1 - Consider how it's presented (this includes tiers of canonicity)
Rule 2 - How many sources support each side? whichever has more sources is generally right.
Rule 3 - If all things are equal, the newest source is always correct.
It's pretty simple. That's how the devs have either directly said canon works or have implied it through directly talking about how canon works.
As far as the infinity of infinities. That is properly used...
It is infinitely unlikely that someone will write the same billion digit number as someone else at any point in their life.
It is infinitely unlikely that if such an event occurs it be at the same time as another person.
The way it would be expressed mathematically i think is x^x where x = infinity.
And there is still yet another problem... it's actually an infinity of infinities of infinities because we're not talking about this just happening one time we're talking about it happening multiple times over... and it's even worse because we're talking about it happening one after another which is
So we're talking about something infinitely unlikely happening multiple times in the exact same order at the exact same time in a string...
So I think the exponent for that is written x^x^x^x where x = infinity. In other words the chances of something like that happening is... well I don't know but it is lower than .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000001 and that's enough for me to say that will likely never happen.
Quote:
What it isn't, though, is enough to say it will not happen.
|
Durakken qualifies: So I think the exponent for that is written x^x^x^x where x = infinity. In other words the chances of something like that happening is... well I don't know but it is lower than .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000001 and that's enough for me to say that will likely never happen. |
Dec out.
Quote:
Samuel. understanding that when I say that something is idiotic to say isn't saying that YOU are an idiot. It's a matter of grasping the language and what it means. Generally what happens when you say something is idiotic to someone who gets that what happens is they ask "what do you mean" or "how so" if the explanation of why isn't already given. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
So, you're saying that you've told people "That's an idiotic thing to say!" and they've had a sudden epiphany and understood their wrongness and embraced the truth of your position? I have a hard time imagining that, because "that's idiotic" is not an argument that's very epiphany-enduing. If anything, it's actually counter-productive because it has a higher chance of entrenching people in their position, even if that position may actually be wrong.
Then again, judging by your posts, tact is not one of your strong points. |
Let me try to give an example...
Let's say you say that a house is on fire and I run over and see that it's not, but you claim it's engulfed in an inferno. I ask "what's the deal?" and you say "It's on fire, but you can't see it" Not only is that insane, that's idiotic. "What do you mean?" If the house was on fire, even if I couldn't see it I could feel the flames. I could see the house being damaged. I could hear the crackling. I could see the smoke. The likely hood of the house being on fire and me not sensing these things would be nearly 0. Most people would say it's impossible, but that's a talk on gnosticism vs agnosticism, and let's not go there. The proper response to this line of thinking is "Yeah, it is idiotic to say a house that shows no signs of being on fire is"
If I were to say, "What you have just said is genius." You would not assume that I am calling you a genius in the sense that you have a 140+ IQ. You would assume you had a good idea. It's the same thing with "That's idiotic" That's not a smart thing to say. It's not "you're not smart".
People tend to externalize the positive and internalize the negative. There is a good reason for this, but it doesn't make it any less wrong and in the practice of discussion and debate one should never internalize something like that. Especially considering that all parties involved may feel the exact same way about an idea but took up that side of the argument for the benefit of seeing where it leads.
Quote:
You will not spontaneously teleport to another location. That has a higher chance fo happening.|
Originally Posted by Decorum
What it isn't, though, is enough to say it will not happen.
|
You will not win the lottery. That has an even higher chance of happening.
You will not be hit by lightning. That has an even higher chance of happening.
You will not die in a car accident. That has an even higher chance of happening.
We're using practical language. Not scientific or philosophic language.
Actually, you're mixing and matching as it suits your will.
Dec out.
Current development view of the game lore trumps in game lore.
When the developers are pushing the story forward if they hit a snag they will retcon in game lore.
This makes the current developer view the most reliable source.
Decorum, How so? I just showed the sources and how it works. The only thing I don't have is the exact quote of how canon works according to the devs sourced for you. But I could if I felt like looking through herocon footage.
LISAR, yes and no. developers stating something that contradicts information in the game is not canon.Only when a dev says something that isn't contradicted it is considered canon... however, when a dev says something, it contradicts, and then the game changes, the dev was still wrong at the time, however the information is now right at present.
That is why newer information takes precedence over older information when all things are equal.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but everything that developers put in the game IS canon, even if it contradicts older stuff and makes no sense. It's not very GOOD canon, but its canon all the same.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
LISAR, yes and no. developers stating something that contradicts information in the game is not canon.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
...|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm sorry, but everything that developers put in the game IS canon, even if it contradicts older stuff and makes no sense. It's not very GOOD canon, but its canon all the same.
|
Comprehension, you need it.
A developer PUTTING something in the game is stuff IN THE GAME and IS CANON.
a developer STATING something about game lore IS NOT CANON when it contradicts.
You are not contradicting what I am saying. You are failing to comprehend what is being said, viewing it as wrong, and saying the exact same thing that was formerly said.
Aaaaanyways....
As a disclaimer, I don't know much about the box, I'm just sort of playing devil's advocate here. Although I must admit it's as good an explanation for the huge surge in supers after Statesman as anything else.
edit: p.s. Azuria says the SHORT VERSION is that gods are evolved spirits. In Percy's origins mission, War Witch says the first two powers were "divine" and "spirit," although they seem related somehow, and she makes a mention of Gaia, and then suddenly starts talking about gods.