No alternate Recluses?

Then let me contradict you. What a developer says very much IS canon unless stated otherwise by another developer. It's their game, they make the rules.

For instance, Manticore went out of his way to set down canon explanations that weren't in the game, yet those count as canon, too.

Or, for that matter, Paragon Times articles, which are not part of the game, have not been put in the game, yet that doesn't seem to stop you from treating them like canon, even when they contradict in-game infomation.

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.

You are really starting to piss me off.

read.

What ever is IN the game IS CANON. Only the game can call into question anything with in it. ANY OTHER SOURCE that contradicts the game IS NOT CANON

Whatever is ON the OFFICIAL SITE IS CANON. Only the Game and Site can call into question anything with it. The Game takes precedence when there is a contradiction. Anything else contradicting the site makes that source not canon.

Whatever a dev says IS CANON. Only the Game, Site, and devs can call into question anything they says. When there is a contradiction The game, then the site takes precedence. Any other source that contradicts is not canon.

The comics and books seem to flip flop which way their heirarchy goes.


So when a DEV says something that contradicts THE GAME. It is not canon.
When a DEV changes something IN THE GAME. It is canon.

What do you not get?

This is very simple and has been stated as such by the devs.

Yes, it is. What the developers say goes, even if they contradict each other, the game or what have you. The last stance on any matter given is canon. It doesn't have to be GOOD canon, but it is canon if they said it. It's their game.

Good. Now you know how I feel.

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.

We'll see.

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.

Good luck on your one-man wiki project.

You've been wrong several times...

Why would you have to look through hero-con footage? From Canon Fodder: Official CoH Lore Q&A.

Since when has that stopped anyone from insisting?

...

Come to think of it, when has that ever stopped even ME from insisting?

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.

Because i keep forgetting that thread is there. Regardless it says exactly what I've said and I'm betting they still think I'm wrong.

It lists Devs and Game as primary sources and extra items as secondary source.

Since Dev posts and in game are equal any newer dev post will trump game.

So Dev -> Game -> other.

How do you get that...
from this...

Because I didn't stop reading at that point...

"hardly unique"

Actually it was a mathematical discussion, even if Durakken now says it wasn't. It should be clear by now that he's making this up as he goes along, of course.

Sam has already covered most of this, but to clarify, I said "points", not "atoms". Atoms are countable, and probably not infinite in any given universe since (we think) universes themselves are not infinite. Points are uncountable because any time you say "this is point #1" and "this is point #2" I can stick another point in between them. That's the short version, for the details you need to look at things like Cantor's diagonal argument (it's on Wiki).

Rest of the silliness snippped for brevity. If the game was right and Manticore was wrong, the game would not have been changed because you don't change correct information. When contradictions arise in a continuing series someone with editorial authority will make a decision as to what is correct, and that decision will not be made using some kind of algorithm. It will probably be made to preserve parsimony in some sense, which may still favor external over internal details. As in the provided example sometimes information that is not in conflict with internal details will be judged as incorrect simply because the creators have decided to go in a different direction. I don't expect any of that to sink in, of course, since it should be clear by now that Durakken lives in his own intestinally-based reality.

Yes, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

That's not proved; it depends on how the universes differentiate. If you posit that all cosmoi are identical until something occurs to differentiate them, then quantum fluctuations are sufficient to create 'adjacent' cosmoi that are, at a level observable to us, indistinguishable -- consider two universes that differ only in the energy state (position and/or velocity) of an electron in the Andromeda Galaxy. As far as it is observable from Earth, the two universes are identical; the implication is therefore that the cardinality of the infinity of universes is more appropriately that of the cardinality of the infinity of real numbers than the cardinality of the infinity of ordinal numbers, rendering the infinity of universes uncountable.

Now, unless we want to go into the concept of split event-branching realities (which I REALLY don't want to do), we have to theories that each universe is wholly and entirely separate from every other universe with no points of crossover. There can be no ambiguity as to where one universe "ends" and another "begins" or which universe a section of space "belongs to." Treating them as separate items, it then becomes a question of how we view the differences between them.

Now, here's the thing. Even if we assume infinite energy, infinite matter and infinite space, the number of basic particles making that space up is still countable because they are distinct physical bodies. The number of different permutations they can assume is, therefore, also countable. And since a universe is "defined" by the current permutation of its base particles, then the universes themselves must be countable, as well. Not necessarily countable BY US, but still countable in the theoretical sense.

That is, of course, if we take in-universe factors to be what defines a universe from the multiverse. If we assume the multiverse to be a set of drawers, then in that model, we can only tell which is which by looking at what's inside. This is not necessarily the case, and indeed in higher-dimension mathematics, any subspace of a larger space is defined by its location within the space, not by what's actually within it.

If we view the multiverse as a vector space, be it one-dimensional, two-dimensional, ten-dimensional or what have you, then each unique vector could be its own universe irrespective of what's actually in it. Given that Portal Corp often speak of dimensional coordinates, rather than "the dimension that's like this and like that," I'm much more willing to assume this model of the multiverse. As such, we don't actually have any guarantee that the universes are actually countable, as we don't know how how the "space" within the multiverse is actually defined. In fact, if we view the multiverse as a higher dimension on top of the three (or possibly four) present in every universe, then theoretically, universes should not take up any "multiverse space" and as such may well be uncountable in the same way real numbers are.

It's actually interesting to think about this, because there are plenty of models that could be used, and I dare say all of them fictional. But it's interesting to theorise that universes are all arranged in some kind of... Let's say "grid" with realities flowing from one to the next as describable by specific overcomplicated, possibly fictitious functions. Simpler models are not hard to construct even just by hand, but universes are... Decidedly less simple.

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.

I have never seen that before, but I believe that you have. Minus one notch on my "people are smart"-o-meter.

It could also go like this:

game said x <-T1 canon.
Dev said Y <- T1 canon.

Someone said "uh oh! One of the tier 1 sources of canon info is wrong! We'd better change it to get in line with the other!" Then the game changed.


OR it could go something like:

First writer says x.

Second writer says Y.They notice it is incongruent, and change it, because hey, everybody's human.


Heh.

see that's not quite how it would work...

There is actually another quasi-tier above tier 1 which is the Game Bible or whatever you want to call it.

So basically...

game says x
dev says y

x = canon as far as we players are concerned...

however

Game Bible says y and dev was getting his info from there and thus we find the contradiction and fix it so that x = y. Then y = canon.

The reason the Game Bible is quasi canon is because theoretically it is the end all to all conversations. However, things do get added and changed and has been described the game bible gives more of a rough outline than it does all the nitty gritty details (though those are probably added later once they have been written) plus it isn't technically "official" depending on how you look at it. There for even though the game bible is quasi-canon tier 0 hypothetically it's not something we as players, unless we ever get to see it, should consider 'canon'

Game is more canon because it's hard to argue once it's in the game...

The site is more canon than a dev stating information for the same reason devs aren't to be 100% trusted. The details that devs talk about can come from quasi canon, their own thoughts and ideas, or any other number of places and a lot of times it hasn't been vetted by everyone that would need to vet it to get it on the site or in the game.

A dev talking about something hasn't gone through everyone that makes those decisions so it cannot ever be taken as above those sources that have been...

or if you want to make it a simple numbers issue (or to base it solely on devs to appease some of you) Game info and Site info is vetted by more devs and by the people who call the shots so it take precedence over any thing any 1 dev says.

Even looking at it from "the devs said so" angle put it where i put it.


Also other continuities have this issue about quasi-canon. Star Trek people argue it all the time, but the majority consensus is if it doesn't make into the final product it is not part of canon even if it is as simple as they didn't have time to film it or they cut it so it is accidentally left out. There are tons of Star Trek notes about various things in Star Trek scripts and countless things just cut, but were filmed. For the most part it's not considered canon.

Making dimensional coordinates map to real rather than ordinal numbers, thereby making the number of alternate dimensions uncountable, does allow a handwave to explain why every hero gets sent off to solve the same problems in the same alternate dimensions (of course, it doesn't explain why we're all doing identical missions here in Paragon City, but that's for other people to explain) -- each time a portal is tuned to a particular set of dimensional coordinates, variations in the actual coordinates below the limits of our accuracy cause the portal to open into different alternate universes, which, by the infinitesimal difference in their coordinates, differ from the 'original' found alternate dimension in an infinitesimal way, so everyone gets a 'brand new' alternate dimension to enter; only the portals that are kept continuously open -- to Recluse's Victory, for example -- link to a single dimension that you can return to again and again.

Clever! I like it a lot! If we postulate that the difference between universes does not occur in large steps, but rather as a continuous process with infinite uncountable universes inbetween, then this gives us a good look at infinite space where we can redo the same missions without too much head-scratching.

Of course, one would assume certain universes would work as hubs, changing those around them when they themselves are changed, or that when one universe is changed sharply, those around it also change to interpolate a smooth transition. But that's all academic as far as "Rule of Cool" storylines are concerned

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.