Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

[Georredannea15]

Then your suggestion needs a much clearer rewrite.

Then I'll deal with it soon. Like I said, if you're beyond all cause and effect types that can happen in the 5 dimensional plane, this will only work in a 5 dimensional plane. Not more. (Of course, the existence of all possible types of cause and effect on this plane must be proved by a statement or context.)

 

[ImmortalDread]

@ImmortalDread I need your help with this argument.

What you have said is my entire point. This is the reason I disagree with the thread. Requiring one to explicitly state to transcend all possible causality systems is nowhere different of what I argued in my own thread.

I feel this is simply an arbitrary requirement which often has displayed no necessity. One only needs to prove to be above the concept and showcase some traits to prove it (such as uninteractability due to logical conclusion), let's say, there is other higher causality system in the verse which locates in other space/location, this is not anti-feat unless he goes there and forced to be within the system and even then, that's case-by-case.

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[Antvasima]

I believe that as this revision is trying to make acausality type 5 require proof of being above all causality systems, which ImmortalDread's revision for type 5 causality has deemed impossible, this thread should be closed. My conversation here has been unproductive.

What do the rest of the staff here think about this?

 

[Georredannea15]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

Qawsedf seems agree with the OP, but i guess we need more staff approval.

Other people still agreed with the change. So the OP being banned or not wouldn't effect it being passed or anything.

Though if Georredanne wants to remake it or something I guess we can close it, But ultimately I don't see why we would.

What do the rest of the staff here think about this?

After some discussion, he realised my point. There was a little disagreement at first, but it was sorted out.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

After some discussion, he realised my point. There was a little disagreement at first, but it was sorted out.

I wouldn't say it's that simple. Your proposal is still something I consider seriously dubious and ill-explained.

 

[Georredannea15]

I wouldn't say it's that simple. Your proposal is still something I consider seriously dubious and ill-explained.

Ehhh well why? I don't know why you are thinking like that. If you still think it is impossible, it is not impossible and it is not something that cannot happen, as I have given example verses. And like I said, I'm still waiting for staffs.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Ehhh well why? I don't know why you are thinking like that. If you still think it is impossible, it is not impossible and it is not something that cannot happen, as I have given example verses. And like I said, I'm still waiting for staffs.

Now that Dread's thread has concluded, I would like you to explain in detail exactly what your proposal entails so I can judge it better.

 

[Georredannea15]

Now that Dread's thread has concluded, I would like you to explain in detail exactly what your proposal entails so I can judge it better.

I'll explain in detail for you when I have time

 

[Georredannea15]

Now that Dread's thread has concluded, I would like you to explain in detail exactly what your proposal entails so I can judge it better.

The reason why I want to elaborate more on Type 5 Acausality is that it is one of the most confusing and therefore wankable haxes, and this is because it is not explained in much detail on the page.

For example, a statement like "Character X has a state of existence outside of the universe of cause and effect that cannot be interacted with." might at first glance seem like a Type 5, but it's not. The main reason for this is that the universe does not know or is not stated in the verse that it contains all possible types of causality systems

In short, if such a statement has no statement or context that the universe contains all cause and effects (which means all causality systems that exist and possible), it would be Type 4. Also, one of the most confusing things here is that having "a state of being that cannot be interacted with" is thought to be Type 5 when combined with the statement "outside of cause and effect", but as I just said, in order to gain Type 5 Acausality with these statements, it must be stated that "This universe has all possible cause-effect relationships/systems that exist and are possible."

As you know, Type 5 Acausality, unlike Type 4, is to be in a non-interactable state and transcended all possible cause-effect types.

But in order to give Type 5 Acausality to a statement or context in a verse such as "Character X transcends all cause-effect types of Multiverse", a context is also needed that there are all possible cause-effect types within Multiverse. If there is no such context or statement, it is no different from Type 4, because we have no idea how many cause-effect types there are in this Multiverse.

Another problem;

The reason why we claim that all possible causal systems are required is that otherwise there would be no difference between Higher degree of type 4 and type 5. Because the fact that they "can never be interacted with" would be restricted only to the cause and effect systems that exist within their verses. But this would lead to some inequalities in crossverse comparisons. Because there may be more cause and effect systems in verse A than in verse B, and it is not known whether a character from verse B will also apply this kind of non-interactability to the systems within the more cause and effect systems in verse A.

Therefore, also it would require a reference that cosmologies/ verses contain all possible types of cause and effect, with in statements or in context...

"Of course, even this type of Acausality Type 5 will only work as far as it is shown in the verse, that is, on the plane where cause and effect relationships exist. Not higher planes or dimensions"

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As you know, Type 5 Acausality, unlike Type 4, is to be in a non-interactable state and transcended all possible cause-effect types.

But in order to give Type 5 Acausality to a statement or context in a verse such as "Character X transcends all cause-effect types of Multiverse", a context is also needed that there are all possible cause-effect types within Multiverse. If there is no such context or statement, it is no different from Type 4, because we have no idea how many cause-effect types there are in this Multiverse.

Another problem;

The reason why we claim that all possible causal systems are required is that otherwise there would be no difference between Higher degree of type 4 and type 5. Because the fact that they "can never be interacted with" would be restricted only to the cause and effect systems that exist within their verses. But this would lead to some inequalities in crossverse comparisons. Because there may be more cause and effect systems in verse A than in verse B, and it is not known whether a character from verse B will also apply this kind of non-interactability to the systems within the more cause and effect systems in verse A.

Therefore, also it would require a reference that cosmologies/ verses contain all possible types of cause and effect, with in statements or in context...

"Of course, even this type of Acausality Type 5 will only work as far as it is shown in the verse, that is, on the plane where cause and effect relationships exist. Not higher"

I'm not too fond of this idea for multiple reasons:

1. I don't see it as necessary that someone needs all possible causality systems to be Type 5 Acausality for the same reason we don't require BDE users to strictly be Low 1-A or above, as one can transcend spacetime on the level they're shown without having to transcend it on every level. Moreover, stating that someone who transcends only some causality systems or transcends an unspecified amount of them means they're only Type 4 Acausality is nonsensical because one can easily have both Type 4 and Type 5 if they entirely transcend one causality system but merely interact irregularly with another.
2. How do we even quantify "all possible" causality systems? We have only one causality system in the real world, so any additional ones in fiction are necessarily entirely fabricated. Also, a verse merely saying they have "all causality systems," if you can even find such a niche quote, is an extreme NLF.
3. The fact that verses might have inequalities in crossverse comparisons is irrelevant. For example, Transduality Type 3 covers all characters that operate on a many-valued logic beyond the four conventional states of true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false, regardless of just how many logic states they scale to.

@ImmortalDread @Elizhaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Deceived3596

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm not too fond of this idea for multiple reasons:

1. I don't see it as necessary that someone needs all possible causality systems to be Type 5 Acausality for the same reason we don't require BDE users to strictly be Low 1-A or above, as one can transcend spacetime on the level they're shown without having to transcend it on every level. Moreover, stating that someone who transcends only some causality systems or transcends an unspecified amount of them means they're only Type 4 Acausality is nonsensical because one can easily have both Type 4 and Type 5 if they entirely transcend one causality system but merely interact irregularly with another.

In other words, you are saying that a being in which there are 10 cause-effect relations and which transcends them and a being in which there are 100 cause-effect relations and which transcends all of them will remain equal and both will gain Type 5 Acausality. This is NLF.

Instead of "assuming" this, it would be much healthier to confirm this with context and statements. In this way, a possible NLF will be prevented and a more "rigorous" scaling will occur. The difference between us is that you advocate conjecture, while I want more certainty and context.

1. How do we even quantify "all possible" causality systems? We have only one causality system in the real world, so any additional ones in fiction are necessarily entirely fabricated. Also, a verse merely saying they have "all causality systems," if you can even find such a niche quote, is an extreme NLF.

I have explained this before and Qawsedf has also mentioned it. Stop still bringing this up. It will only work according to the plane you are in. I don't want to go round in circles here again.

And who told you that there is only one system of causality in the real world? That's horribly inaccurate. Every action, regular or irregular, depends on a different cause and effect relationship.

In fact, without such a context, it would be a NLF to assume that all possible cause-effect types exist in this cosmology.

1. The fact that verses might have inequalities in crossverse comparisons is irrelevant. For example, Transduality Type 3 covers all characters that operate on a many-valued logic beyond the four conventional states of true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false, regardless of just how many logic states they scale to.

@ImmortalDread @Elizhaa @Everything12 @TheUnshakableOne @Deceived3596

This... has nothing to do with what i said. And don't tag Dread, TheUnshakableOne and other users in here. They can post here as long as they has permission from an admin or a brucrat, otherwise, you have no right to give permission to comment for users.

I also have a reasonable request, could you tag DT and Qawsedf one last time?

 

[Georredannea15]

These right here perfectly encapsulate my issues with the idea.

It's almost like making any type 5 acausal character a smurf character

I recommend you read this comment. You don't even need it for this use of Acausality Type 5.

And you'd have to get some sort of super specific statement of "I'm infinite layers transcending causality." What verse even does that?

There is no such obligation. Because you do not need higher dimensions to prove all the types of cause and effect exist in your verse. Buddhism is an example of this. And as Qawsedf explains, even such Acausality type 5 only works on the dimensional plane of existence in which it resides. That is, one cannot go beyond the plane showed by the verse.

Most verses usually only have 1 default causality system. Very rarely do you find a verse that has more and when you do. It's usually some relationship with time.

That is, will a being that transcends all( only one) cause-effect systems in cosmology and a being that transcends all possible cause-effect systems in other cosmology be considered equal (although the existence of all possible cause-effect types has been proven in the verse.)? Hell yeah this is a NLF.

This is assuming I understood what is being proposed properly.

I have a question. Do you have permission to comment?

 

[Antvasima]

Now that Dread's thread has concluded, I would like you to explain in detail exactly what your proposal entails so I can judge it better.

Which thread are you referring to?

Also, what in this thread needs to be evaluated by our staff?

 

[Georredannea15]

Also, what in this thread needs to be evaluated by our staff?

That's my point in a nutshell.

As you know, Type 5 Acausality, unlike Type 4, is to be in a non-interactable state and transcended all possible cause-effect types.

But in order to give Type 5 Acausality to a statement or context in a verse such as "Character X transcends all cause-effect types of Multiverse", a context is also needed that there are all possible cause-effect types within Multiverse. If there is no such context or statement, it is no different from Type 4, because we have no idea how many cause-effect types there are in this Multiverse.

Another problem;

The reason why we claim that all possible causal systems are required is that otherwise there would be no difference between Higher degree of type 4 and type 5. Because the fact that they "can never be interacted with" would be restricted only to the cause and effect systems that exist within their verses. But this would lead to some inequalities in crossverse comparisons. Because there may be more cause and effect systems in verse A than in verse B, and it is not known whether a character from verse B will also apply this kind of non-interactability to the systems within the more cause and effect systems in verse A.

Therefore, also it would require a reference that cosmologies/ verses contain all possible types of cause and effect, with in statements or in context...

"Of course, even this type of Acausality Type 5 will only work as far as it is shown in the verse, that is, on the plane where cause and effect relationships exist. Not higher planes or dimensions"

And this is Qawsedf's points. Qawsedf seems agrees with the OP that the language should be clearer and that context in the OP should be mandatory.

just making the languge more explict about what qualifies I'm fine with. Though the fears that the wording change will lead to the power becoming to niche to ever work might be valid.

Ultimately speaking there does need to be a clear piece of evidence that states X is beyond any causality system in their cosmology rather than just a general Acasual statement.

These are the issues under consideration now.


Btw Ant, what do you think about the OP? Your opinion is also important to me.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @Planck69 @DarkGrath

Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

Then your suggestion needs a much clearer rewrite. Then I'll deal with it soon. Like I said, if you're beyond all cause and effect types that can happen in the 5 dimensional plane, this will only work in a 5 dimensional plane. Not more. (Of course, the existence of all possible types of cause...

vsbattles.com

What do you think about this?

 

[Georredannea15]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @Planck69 @DarkGrath

Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

Then your suggestion needs a much clearer rewrite. Then I'll deal with it soon. Like I said, if you're beyond all cause and effect types that can happen in the 5 dimensional plane, this will only work in a 5 dimensional plane. Not more. (Of course, the existence of all possible types of cause...

vsbattles.com

What do you think about this?

Btw Ant, what do you think about the OP? Your opinions is also important to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not sure. It is not really my area. My apologies.

 

[Georredannea15]

I am not sure. It is not really my area. My apologies.

No problem

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I kind of got lost on this thread.

 

[Georredannea15]

I kind of got lost on this thread.

If I were to summarise it in a simple way...

These are OP's points;

As you know, Type 5 Acausality, unlike Type 4, is to be in a non-interactable state and transcended all possible cause-effect types.

But in order to give Type 5 Acausality to a statement or context in a verse such as "Character X transcends all cause-effect types of Multiverse", a context is also needed that there are all possible cause-effect types within Multiverse. If there is no such context or statement, it is no different from Type 4, because we have no idea how many cause-effect types there are in this Multiverse.

Another problem;

The reason why we claim that all possible causal systems are required is that otherwise there would be no difference between Higher degree of type 4 and type 5. Because the fact that they "can never be interacted with" would be restricted only to the cause and effect systems that exist within their verses. But this would lead to some inequalities in crossverse comparisons. Because there may be more cause and effect systems in verse A than in verse B, and it is not known whether a character from verse B will also apply this kind of non-interactability to the systems within the more cause and effect systems in verse A.

Therefore, also it would require a reference that cosmologies/ verses contain all possible types of cause and effect, with in statements or in context...

"Of course, even this type of Acausality Type 5 will only work as far as it is shown in the verse, that is, on the plane where cause and effect relationships exist. Not higher planes or dimensions"

And these are Qawsedf's thoughts;

just making the languge more explict about what qualifies I'm fine with. Though the fears that the wording change will lead to the power becoming to niche to ever work might be valid.

Ultimately speaking there does need to be a clear piece of evidence that states X is beyond any causality system in their cosmology rather than just a general Acasual statement.

Well, Qawsedf seems agrees with the OP that the language should be clear and that context in the OP should be mandatory.

Basically these are the main issues and what the OP offers.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I've always thought the delineation between Type 4 and Type 5 Acausality was quite clear and reasonable. When someone operates on a different system of causality than the baseline one for the verse, we give them Type 4. When someone operates outside of any system of causality (or, alternatively phrased, they operate on no system of causality), we give them Type 5.

I can imagine edge cases where the split wouldn't be so clear (for example, if a quote from a verse merely stated someone "wasn't tied to cause and effect" with no other elaboration), but I also imagine such edge cases would best be resolved with the necessary discretion afforded to the users debating those cases. At worst, if it's completely impossible to say for sure whether a feat/statement is indicative of Type 4 or Type 5, the general culture of the wiki tends to lean towards lowballing over highballing and so would likely be resolved by regarding it as Type 4. I'm not personally a fan of this mentality, but that's a digression - it would be consistent with most of our profiles and standards to take a conservative approach to unclear feats/statements, and consistency is important in any form of indexing.

Ultimately, the only issue I see here is the fact that, whatever the problem may be, we've evidently caused confusion regarding these standards. Different people on this thread have different concepts of what Type 4/5 Acausality is, and consequentially, what it should be. I don't see any issue with the version of Acausality I've listed above (that is, "operating on a different system of causality" for Type 4 and "operating on no system of causality" for Type 5), and I would simply suggest that we discuss how to rephrase the Acausality page to make this clearer. However, I'm open to criticisms regarding whether Acausality should be classified differently to how we classify it now.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

In other words, you are saying that a being in which there are 10 cause-effect relations and which transcends them and a being in which there are 100 cause-effect relations and which transcends all of them will remain equal and both will gain Type 5 Acausality. This is NLF.

Instead of "assuming" this, it would be much healthier to confirm this with context and statements. In this way, a possible NLF will be prevented and a more "rigorous" scaling will occur. The difference between us is that you advocate conjecture, while I want more certainty and context.

Both will gain Type 5 Acausality, but in no way will they be equal. Two characters with the same ability do not need to be equal.

I have explained this before and Qawsedf has also mentioned it. Stop still bringing this up. It will only work according to the plane you are in. I don't want to go round in circles here again.

And who told you that there is only one system of causality in the real world? That's horribly inaccurate. Every action, regular or irregular, depends on a different cause and effect relationship.

In fact, without such a context, it would be a NLF to assume that all possible cause-effect types exist in this cosmology.

Then it seems like I didn't understand what you meant by "causality system" in this context. Please elaborate.

This... has nothing to do with what i said.

It has everything to do with what you said. I was making an analogy to demonstrate that two users of the same ability can use that ability on wildly different scales while still both being considered users of that ability. If you didn't understand, here's a few clearer ones. Are fire manipulation users no longer qualified for fire manipulation because we haven't proven they can manipulate every possible form of fire? Are disease manipulation users no longer qualified for disease manipulation because we haven't proven they can manipulate every disease possible?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

Then your suggestion needs a much clearer rewrite. Then I'll deal with it soon. Like I said, if you're beyond all cause and effect types that can happen in the 5 dimensional plane, this will only work in a 5 dimensional plane. Not more. (Of course, the existence of all possible types of cause...

vsbattles.com

What do you think about this?

Type 5 isn't my strong point regarding Acausality. Though it seems to be just trying to make the description more clear (which I can agree with) however I'd rather leave this to those more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[Agnaa]

That's my point in a nutshell.

How many times do we have to go over this?

Acausality Type 4 is any weirdness of causality, no matter its applicability.

Acausality Type 5 is being above even a single causal system to the extent that you can't be interacted with by characters who operate under that causal system.

Saying that a character would be above all causal systems is a massive NLF, and is almost always contradicted to the point of not existing as an ability.

 

[The_Emperor4th]

Can’t believe this thread is still ongoing. Although, the user who make this thread itself already get banned lol, but those are not really the main discussion at the moment.

Anyway, got permission from @Just_a_Random_Butler to comment here once...

If I give a simple example, if you hit your opponent, he will be hurt and injured as a result. This is a case of regular cause and effect. But if you hit a character with irregular cause and effect, the result will hurt you, not your opponent. This is one of the cases of irregular cause and effect, but different consequences of this can also be in a different cause and effect relationship. Of course, these can be in different results, such as this one for example

None of these examples are “other other causality system”, having other consequences on different result even though in the verse/fiction there is already established a different causality system doesn't indicate that it is another causality system.

What you describe are still falls into one different causality system result, we don't assume it is another more causality systems without direct and explicit proof that it is described as another causality system.

The aim is to prevent every verse from gaining this hax easily and to minimize NLF. And my point in putting this profile here is because Dread called it "impossible". If there is more than one profile and verse with this feature, it is not impossible to prove it.

Which profile that are establish more than one causality system in their verse may I ask? because not all verse demonstrate those kind of things.

Depending on the context, a character can prove his or her omnipotency in verse or something else. The important thing here is "context". As long as you ignore this, we're not getting anywhere. Also, omnipotency and Acausality aren't even alike.

Yeah, we don’t treat Omnipotence and Acausality are the same thing, those two are completely different things, the same way as we don’t treat Transduality and Acausality are the same things by default.

The reason why I want to elaborate more on Type 5 Acausality is that it is one of the most confusing and therefore wankable haxes, and this is because it is not explained in much detail on the page.

All hax are wankable, people can wank anything. The page is fine but I admit that it looks like it’s gonna cause confusing, we can work to make it more understandable rather than making it harder.

For example, a statement like "Character X has a state of existence outside of the universe of cause and effect that cannot be interacted with." might at first glance seem like a Type 5, but it's not. The main reason for this is that the universe does not know or is not stated in the verse that it contains all possible types of causality systems

That’s a pretty self explanatory description for type 5, as long as the character are uninteractable/untouchable and doesn’t have anti-feats or something like that.

I don’t know why we need to show all possible types of causality systems.

In short, if such a statement has no statement or context that the universe contains all cause and effects (which means all causality systems that exist and possible), it would be Type 4. Also, one of the most confusing things here is that having "a state of being that cannot be interacted with" is thought to be Type 5 when combined with the statement "outside of cause and effect", but as I just said, in order to gain Type 5 Acausality with these statements, it must be stated that "This universe has all possible cause-effect relationships/systems that exist and are possible."

One can have evidence that with just beyond/outside of/transcend only 1 specific causality, it could lead and get the result of being unable to changed by any effect that relies on that one specific system of causality, without mentioning any number or causality system.

As you know, Type 5 Acausality, unlike Type 4, is to be in a non-interactable state and transcended all possible cause-effect types.

The page doesn’t said, “you need to transcend all causality systems type” to begin with. So please stop misrepresenting what the page said.

But in order to give Type 5 Acausality to a statement or context in a verse such as "Character X transcends all cause-effect types of Multiverse", a context is also needed that there are all possible cause-effect types within Multiverse. If there is no such context or statement, it is no different from Type 4, because we have no idea how many cause-effect types there are in this Multiverse.

We don’t assume that having other universes or multiverse or even infinite of it, indicating that there are operating or established another different causality system without the evidence or such a very specific statement that said it is by default.

One could demonstrated with only one causality system, but it can govern all infinite universes without those “all causality systems stuff”.

Another problem;

The reason why we claim that all possible causal systems are required is that otherwise there would be no difference between Higher degree of type 4 and type 5. Because the fact that they "can never be interacted with" would be restricted only to the cause and effect systems that exist within their verses. But this would lead to some inequalities in crossverse comparisons. Because there may be more cause and effect systems in verse A than in verse B, and it is not known whether a character from verse B will also apply this kind of non-interactability to the systems within the more cause and effect systems in verse A.

I just quoted what I said back then, which you and Ravee seems doesn’t want to respond it yet:

If you’re gonna arguing in crossverse/Vs match like: “X has 1000 different causality system, so X can effect/interact Y who has acausality Type 5 because X has 999 better number of causality systems than Y” then, no it is not. I don’t see why this will be such an unfair comparison. I will argue in that match that X is the one that falls to NLF territory, having more quantity doesn’t equal to having more quality. You still need a feat to interact with the type 5 because they are literally impossible to get to interact.

It doesn’t really matter whether you are beyond all the causality systems or whatever in your verse, if you don’t have a feat to interact or effects to the Type 5 user then, you can’t even do a single shit to beat them, doesn’t even can touch them.

 

[Georredannea15]

How many times do we have to go over this?

Acausality Type 4 is any weirdness of causality, no matter its applicability.

Acausality Type 5 is being above even a single causal system to the extent that you can't be interacted with by characters who operate under that causal system.

Saying that a character would be above all causal systems is a massive NLF, and is almost always contradicted to the point of not existing as an ability.

I don't understand why we assume that a character that is beyond a simple causal system is above all causality.

It's like assuming that a character that is above X is also above Y, Z and V. That's a NLF

That character could be beyond just one regular causality. Or only a few causalities, but what if the existence of different and irregular states of this causality cannot be proved by the context or by the statements in the verse, and it did not transcend these states? Why do we assume that a character that transcends only a simple system transcends all regular and irregular types? To make this clearer, I have made the section "all types of cause and effect, i.e. all regular and irregular states" obligatory. (There are more some things but I have written them below)

Also, "all cause-effect relations will only be valid for the plane in which they exist"

Language and statements need to be more clear

 

[Georredannea15]

Can’t believe this thread is still ongoing. Although, the user who make this thread itself already get banned lol, but those are not really the main discussion at the moment.

Anyway, got permission from @Just_a_Random_Butler to comment here once...


None of these examples are “other other causality system”, having other consequences on different result even though in the verse/fiction there is already established a different causality system doesn't indicate that it is another causality system.

What you describe are still falls into one different causality system result, we don't assume it is another more causality systems without direct and explicit proof that it is described as another causality system.


Which profile that are establish more than one causality system in their verse may I ask? because not all verse demonstrate those kind of things.


Yeah, we don’t treat Omnipotence and Acausality are the same thing, those two are completely different things, the same way as we don’t treat Transduality and Acausality are the same things by default.


All hax are wankable, people can wank anything. The page is fine but I admit that it looks like it’s gonna cause confusing, we can work to make it more understandable rather than making it harder.


That’s a pretty self explanatory description for type 5, as long as the character are uninteractable/untouchable and doesn’t have anti-feats or something like that.

I don’t know why we need to show all possible types of causality systems.

We are not discussing provability here. Why is a character that transcends a simple causality in its own verse assumed to transcend "all regular and irregular systems of cause and effect?"

This character may transcend causality X (in own verse), but since the existence of Y is not found in the verse, its relation to Y is unknown. It would be a NLF to assume that the character that transcends only the X causality in its own verse is also transcendent of and unaffected by Y and all other possible causalities.

For if the verse states that it is at most transcendent of X, with irregular different states of X and no other types of causality specified at all, then since this character is transcendent of X only, it is not affected by the states of X only, but since the other types are not specified, it may be affected by their states, which would be unacceptable for Type 5.

This is the reason for this requirement.

Language and statements need to be more clear for Type 5.

One can have evidence that with just beyond/outside of/transcend only 1 specific causality, it could lead and get the result of being unable to changed by any effect that relies on that one specific system of causality, without mentioning any number or causality system.

The page doesn’t said, “you need to transcend all causality systems type” to begin with. So please stop misrepresenting what the page said.


We don’t assume that having other universes or multiverse or even infinite of it, indicating that there are operating or established another different causality system without the evidence or such a very specific statement that said it is by default.

One could demonstrated with only one causality system, but it can govern all infinite universes without those “all causality systems stuff”.

Yes, it can only be governed by one causal system (for example. X), but it would be NLF to assume that a character that transcends X in his verse is also transcendent and unaffected by Y, Z and other states. In order for us to know that these characters transcend and are unaffected by all possible regular and irregular causal systems, we need to know that all types of cause and effect are exist in the verse.

I just quoted what I said back then, which you and Ravee seems doesn’t want to respond it yet:

Ravee got banned.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I don't understand why we assume that a character that is beyond a simple causal system is above all causality.

It's like assuming that a character that is above X is also above Y, Z and V. That's a NLF

That character could be beyond just one regular causality. Or only a few causalities, but what if the existence of different and irregular states of this causality cannot be proved by the context or by the statements in the verse, and it did not transcend these states? Why do we assume that a character that transcends only a simple system transcends all regular and irregular types? To make this clearer, I have made the section "all types of cause and effect, i.e. all regular and irregular states" obligatory. (There are more some things but I have written them below)

Also, "all cause-effect relations will only be valid for the plane in which they exist"

Language and statements need to be more clear

We don't assume that. Our point is that one doesn't need to transcend all causality to have Acausality Type 5, just at least one. Your standards are far too restrictive to be useful.

 

[Georredannea15]

I've always thought the delineation between Type 4 and Type 5 Acausality was quite clear and reasonable. When someone operates on a different system of causality than the baseline one for the verse, we give them Type 4. When someone operates outside of any system of causality (or, alternatively phrased, they operate on no system of causality), we give them Type 5.

Actually wiki now gives Type 5 to bypass simple causality and be non-interactive. But what about the other regular and irregular types? It would be NLF to assume transcendence from all other states and types just because it transcends simple causation.

I can imagine edge cases where the split wouldn't be so clear (for example, if a quote from a verse merely stated someone "wasn't tied to cause and effect" with no other elaboration), but I also imagine such edge cases would best be resolved with the necessary discretion afforded to the users debating those cases. At worst, if it's completely impossible to say for sure whether a feat/statement is indicative of Type 4 or Type 5, the general culture of the wiki tends to lean towards lowballing over highballing and so would likely be resolved by regarding it as Type 4. I'm not personally a fan of this mentality, but that's a digression - it would be consistent with most of our profiles and standards to take a conservative approach to unclear feats/statements, and consistency is important in any form of indexing.

If I were to talk a little more in detail...

Every action and its realization process depends on a causal system. For example, running, hitting and flying.

If a character is in a state where the action of "running" found in his verse is transcendent and non-interactable from all causal consequences, it is Type 5. However, we do not know how this character relates to other actions . And as you know, beings with Type 5 are not affected by any cause-effect action in the crossverse (even if it has transcended a simple system in its own verse).

This will be an NLF. Therefore, the language and expression in the verse should be more clear. And of course, the page should also become more clear.

Ultimately, the only issue I see here is the fact that, whatever the problem may be, we've evidently caused confusion regarding these standards. Different people on this thread have different concepts of what Type 4/5 Acausality is, and consequentially, what it should be. I don't see any issue with the version of Acausality I've listed above (that is, "operating on a different system of causality" for Type 4 and "operating on no system of causality" for Type 5), and I would simply suggest that we discuss how to rephrase the Acausality page to make this clearer. However, I'm open to criticisms regarding whether Acausality should be classified differently to how we classify it now.

Yes, in fact, one of my goals is that the language in the page and the statements in the verse should be more clear.

 

[Georredannea15]

We don't assume that. Our point is that one doesn't need to transcend all causality to have Acausality Type 5, just at least one. Your standards are far too restrictive to be useful.

No, although it is not explained much on the page, only a character who has type 5 by transcending a simple system in his own verse is not affected by any action, has a transcendent existence. That's how we currently assume Type 5, so it's impossible to interact with type 5 beings.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

No, although it is not explained much on the page, only a character who has type 5 by transcending a simple system in his own verse is not affected by any action, has a transcendent existence. That's how we currently assume Type 5, so it's impossible to interact with type 5 beings.

It's impossible to interact with Type 5 beings via the causality systems they transcend. Also, saying a character is absolutely impossible to interact with is akin to saying they cannot possibly have any impact on the story. That's why Dread's revision added that line to the description.

 

[Georredannea15]

It's impossible to interact with Type 5 beings via the causality systems they transcend. Also, saying a character is impossible to interact with is akin to saying they cannot possibly have any impact on the story. That's why Dread's revision added that line to the description.

You mentioned a good place. Then why is a type 5 being, which transcends a single causality in his own verse, exempted from other actions and causality in the crossverse(Although not mentioned in his own verse) ? It is my aim to bring this obligation because of remove this gap and to make the language more clear.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

You mentioned a good place. Then why is a type 5 being, which transcends a single causality in his own verse, exempted from other actions and causality in the crossverse(Although not mentioned in his own verse) ? It is my aim to bring this obligation because of remove this gap and to make the language more clear.

Your grammar is too atrocious for me to understand what you're saying.

 

[Georredannea15]

Your grammar is too atrocious for me to understand what you're saying.

Maybe, I'll respond when you learn to speak respectfully.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Maybe, I'll respond when you learn to speak respectfully.

Was "atrocious" too strong of a word for you? Are you seriously going to stall this thread because I typed a slightly strong word?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't understand why we assume that a character that is beyond a simple causal system is above all causality.

It's like assuming that a character that is above X is also above Y, Z and V. That's a NLF

I know, that's why I said we don't do that.

That character could be beyond just one regular causality. Or only a few causalities, but what if the existence of different and irregular states of this causality cannot be proved by the context or by the statements in the verse, and it did not transcend these states? Why do we assume that a character that transcends only a simple system transcends all regular and irregular types? To make this clearer, I have made the section "all types of cause and effect, i.e. all regular and irregular states" obligatory. (There are more some things but I have written them below)

We don't, that's why I said we don't do that.

You mentioned a good place. Then why is a type 5 being, which transcends a single causality in his own verse, exempted from other actions and causality in the crossverse(Although not mentioned in his own verse) ? It is my aim to bring this obligation because of remove this gap and to make the language more clear.

Because we don't by default assume that characters from other verses have stronger causal systems such that they would be able to affect a type 5 being. That sort of thing needs evidence.

 

[Georredannea15]

I know, that's why I said we don't do that.

We don't, that's why I said we don't do that.

Because we don't by default assume that characters from other verses have stronger causal systems such that they would be able to affect a type 5 being. That sort of thing needs evidence.

My common answer to all of them. Then why do we assume that two 5-D type 5 Acausality (or 6-D whatever...) are the same?

I wanted to bring these standards in order to fill these assumptions and gaps and to have a clearer thought and language.

This evidence requires a statement of how many cause-effect relationships there are, and whether they are regular or irregular. This is simply "the context or evidence for the existence of all types of cause and effect" will close this gap to a large extent.

Because unfortunately, at present, 2 Type 5 Acausal characters in the same plane are considered equal, regardless of the context.

Because we don't by default assume that characters from other verses have stronger causal systems such that they would be able to affect a type 5 being. That sort of thing needs evidence.

This is precisely why "the existence of all types of cause and effect must be proved by context or statement within the verse. If it is not proven, a Type 5 Acausal being on the same dimensional plane that transcends a simple causal system and a Type 5 Acausal being that transcends all cause and effect types will be considered equal out of context on the wiki "because they are both supposedly beings with Type 5 Acausality"

 

[Agnaa]

My common answer to all of them. Then why do we assume that two 5-D type 5 Acausality (or 6-D whatever...) are the same?

Because we have no reason to consider them different until evidence is provided.