- 8,427
- 3,144
Ok, so I was on this thread.
And in said thread, Wokista stated that The Warpiest would resist (or just be flat out immune to) Yhwach's Precog because he's Acausal, his reasoning was this:
"Causality refers to the nature of a cause and affect relationship. Being beyond this means that precognition cannot be assumed to accurately predict the futures of beings like this without proof, as predicting the future effects that will happen of something that sidesteps this issue entirely shouldn't work without confirmation."
I stated that this sounds like nonsense to me and I gave an example of why I believe him to be wrong:
"This still makes no sense to me.
"Causality refers to the nature of a cause and effect relationship."
Cause and effect.
If I go back to kill a person when they were a baby who also has Acausality. It means they are not dead in the present.
In simple terms, the Cause; the infanticide, does not have the intended Effect; having the person be erased from the timeline because you went back and killed them in the past.
The Past has no effect on the present and future.
How does that effect being able to see their future?
That is the literal opposite side of the temporal spectrum."
He responded,
"By viewing the future, you are viewing that which is the results of effects that can ordinarily be predicted by precog. When this is disrupted and as such cause and effect cannot be accurately predicted or even associated, precognition shouldn't really work that well. Feel free to make a thread about this though, I'm pretty sure that's how we do it."
And so I am making this thread about this topic.
TL;DR:
So...is Wokista right? Is Acausality some sort of Precog nullifier?
If so, can someone explain it to me in simpler detail, because I'm just not getting it?
My understanding and opinion of Wokista's words are that it is a ludicrously loose interpretation of how future timelines work to implement some sort of connection to a cause and effect relationship, which is therefore resisted/nulled by Acausality.
Which I believe to be false and I also question as to why this wouldn't be on the Acausality page if it was true?
Or at the very least mentioned.
And in said thread, Wokista stated that The Warpiest would resist (or just be flat out immune to) Yhwach's Precog because he's Acausal, his reasoning was this:
"Causality refers to the nature of a cause and affect relationship. Being beyond this means that precognition cannot be assumed to accurately predict the futures of beings like this without proof, as predicting the future effects that will happen of something that sidesteps this issue entirely shouldn't work without confirmation."
I stated that this sounds like nonsense to me and I gave an example of why I believe him to be wrong:
"This still makes no sense to me.
"Causality refers to the nature of a cause and effect relationship."
Cause and effect.
If I go back to kill a person when they were a baby who also has Acausality. It means they are not dead in the present.
In simple terms, the Cause; the infanticide, does not have the intended Effect; having the person be erased from the timeline because you went back and killed them in the past.
The Past has no effect on the present and future.
How does that effect being able to see their future?
That is the literal opposite side of the temporal spectrum."
He responded,
"By viewing the future, you are viewing that which is the results of effects that can ordinarily be predicted by precog. When this is disrupted and as such cause and effect cannot be accurately predicted or even associated, precognition shouldn't really work that well. Feel free to make a thread about this though, I'm pretty sure that's how we do it."
And so I am making this thread about this topic.
TL;DR:
So...is Wokista right? Is Acausality some sort of Precog nullifier?
If so, can someone explain it to me in simpler detail, because I'm just not getting it?
My understanding and opinion of Wokista's words are that it is a ludicrously loose interpretation of how future timelines work to implement some sort of connection to a cause and effect relationship, which is therefore resisted/nulled by Acausality.
Which I believe to be false and I also question as to why this wouldn't be on the Acausality page if it was true?
Or at the very least mentioned.