**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.

Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.

New update out today or tomorrow?

24

Comments

  • Thicco_ModeThicco_Mode Posts: 8,852 ★★★★★
    Aziz5253 said:

    Moot4Life said:

    MaxGaming said:

    The new release drops tomorrow!

    Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
    then why does he think cyclops is effective :/
    Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
    wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
  • RebarkRebark Posts: 342 ★★★

    Thursday the first after that Monday next time.

    Thursday the first after that Monday next time is the new early june
  • Apocalypse189Apocalypse189 Posts: 1,128 ★★★
    edited December 2020

    Aziz5253 said:

    Moot4Life said:

    MaxGaming said:

    The new release drops tomorrow!

    Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
    then why does he think cyclops is effective :/
    Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
    wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
    In that case, the present or past would be different

    Time travel has very strict rules

    Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.
  • Aziz5253 said:

    Moot4Life said:

    MaxGaming said:

    The new release drops tomorrow!

    Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
    then why does he think cyclops is effective :/
    Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
    wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
    In that case, the present or past would be different

    Time travel has very strict rules

    Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.
    U mean the butterfly effect
  • tkhan08tkhan08 Posts: 189 ★★
    Update should be out by now, no?
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★

    Aziz5253 said:

    Moot4Life said:

    MaxGaming said:

    The new release drops tomorrow!

    Why is everyone disagreeing with the administrator he knows more than any of us players
    then why does he think cyclops is effective :/
    Because he knew what was coming in the new AQ season and that cyclops would rock it
    wait what if he was a time traveller and accidentally gave us data from a few years in the future
    In that case, the present or past would be different

    Time travel has very strict rules

    Its like stepping on a butterfly and changing the whole history of the world.
    No because when you time travel to the past, it was already set in time. You wouldn't have time traveled if you hadn't appeared in the past, because that led up to you time traveling. You cannot alter a timeline.
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    @Crcrcrc Depends on how you view time, particularly with respect to an A-theory of time vs. a B-theory of time. Ain't metaphysics fun? Point being, depends on the theory, lol.
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★
    edited December 2020

    @Crcrcrc Depends on how you view time, particularly with respect to an A-theory of time vs. a B-theory of time. Ain't metaphysics fun? Point being, depends on the theory, lol.

    If you think about it, if time travel is eventually possible in the future, someone would have already come back and caused a paradox. That would have ended the universe ages ago unless timelines are unalterable.
  • Apocalypse189Apocalypse189 Posts: 1,128 ★★★
    Just watch Back to the Future and Doctor Who
    Theyll explain it more
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★

    Just watch Back to the Future and Doctor Who
    Theyll explain it more

    Back to the Future is awesome, but a major paradox.
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    edited December 2020
    @Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

    If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
    If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
    I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
    Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

    It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★

    @Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

    If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
    If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
    I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
    Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

    It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

    I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
  • Moot4LifeMoot4Life Posts: 2,132 ★★★★
    Crcrcrc said:

    @Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

    If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
    If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
    I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
    Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

    It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

    I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
    because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★
    Moot4Life said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    @Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

    If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
    If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
    I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
    Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

    It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

    I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
    because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.
    Technically you would be wiped out immediately with no time at all to fix it.
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    @Crcrcrc That's what I was attempting to respond to. The assumption that someone COULD have done that in the future requires the primary assumption that the future has already occurred, or more clearly put, that the B-theory of time is true. Under this theory you could sort of view time in a Boethian manner where time is like a line that is traversed and each event is as real as any other, although this is just how I picture it in my head from the little knowledge I have on the subject. It's not like such an assumption is axiomatic or anything and can often have deterministic problems, not that I'm saying determinism isn't true per say, I have my own reservations with it though.
  • Sarvanga1_Sarvanga1_ Posts: 4,139 ★★★★★

    Me coming to this post just to check if update is out yet and seeing these time travel comments:

    Me too lol
  • Moot4LifeMoot4Life Posts: 2,132 ★★★★
    Crcrcrc said:

    Moot4Life said:

    Crcrcrc said:

    @Crcrcrc That's not quite true, that entirely depends upon an eternalist point of view, or perhaps even fatalist. Basically, you're presuming that future events are real (i.e. have occurred or will have definitely occurred). Personally, I side more towards an A-theory of time (it's more compatible with free will, but logically speaking I find it more convincing anyways). Scientists and philosophers have debated for hundreds if not thousands of years over the issue, I find the metaphysical question to be unanswerable if only due to a empirical/apriori reasoning issue to do with my view of epistemology. Sorry for the jargon, essentially, it isn't that simple due to different theories of how time might potentially work. An argument off the top of my head for an A-theory of time would be concious experience upon an infinite length of time (given eternalism), so you can sort of say something like the following:

    If eternalism is true, all moments of time exist as real as any other.
    If every moment of time is equally real, then I would have to experience some said moment of time.
    I have not experienced any moments apart from the present and the past (or so I believe at least).
    Therefore, (modus tollens), eternalism is not true.

    It's by no means a full proof argument, but it's pretty standard. You can avoid the problem given a multiverse, or if you define the B-theory of time to take on parallel timelines which each have conscious experiences associated with them (roughly, sorry, poor explanation).

    I suppose, but that still comes back to my original question: If time traveling and altering timelines is theoretically possible, why haven't we been wiped out by a paradox caused by someone in the future going to the past and causing it?
    because someone finds a way to fix it. they always do.
    Technically you would be wiped out immediately with no time at all to fix it.
    but you can use the time machine to travel back
  • CrcrcrcCrcrcrc Posts: 7,935 ★★★★★

    @Crcrcrc That's what I was attempting to respond to. The assumption that someone COULD have done that in the future requires the primary assumption that the future has already occurred, or more clearly put, that the B-theory of time is true. Under this theory you could sort of view time in a Boethian manner where time is like a line that is traversed and each event is as real as any other, although this is just how I picture it in my head from the little knowledge I have on the subject. It's not like such an assumption is axiomatic or anything and can often have deterministic problems, not that I'm saying determinism isn't true per say, I have my own reservations with it though.

    Ok that is a good point. My thought is that either the future is set in a specific way, or our timeline will be altered repeatedly in the future when time travel is possible and the future becomes real events in time.
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    @Long_haired_freak It isn't quite that simple, that paradox actually has a number of solutions depending upon your metaphysical theory of time. For example, split timelines creating distinct universes.
  • Moot4LifeMoot4Life Posts: 2,132 ★★★★

    Time travel is theoretically impossible by Grand Father paradox. Suppose you build a time machine, go back in time and accidentally kill one of your ancestor like your grand father. By that logic, your father was never born and you cease to exist. So by that logic you cannot time travel if you never existed.

    actually in that paradox since there an infinite number of possibilities, another family forms and creates you
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    @Crcrcrc Time theories are always odd because they affect your theory of free will, time travel, ethics (somewhat), and other fun stuff. It's a reasonable enough viewpoint, just have to substantiate it to have a fairly justified view I'd think. Ideally I'd like to say we have free will, but the fact that we consciously experience reality AS IF we have free will is enough of an empirical argument to console me up until some other theory is proven.
  • Scrubkiller_1Scrubkiller_1 Posts: 140
    Actually, in scientific academia, multiverse theories and parallel universes are often taken to be very serious theories. For example, I believe Sean Carroll has written several books on a theory he was involved in creating (sorry, rough memory) that was relatively cogent and coherent and it involved some sort of multiverse theory. Theories are really just that, theories. Their strength tends to depend upon a few things, i.e. apriori probability, probability based on number of assumptions (Occam's razor is good here), most importantly predictive success, etc. It's not fiction at all, they're all theories, including whatever view you take of time. The strength of your own view is somewhat proportionate to the justification you have for it, although I don't think epistemology is that simple given the flaws of classical foundationalism. Sorry, real bad at summarizing and simplifying, no desire to use such esoteric language.
Sign In or Register to comment.