Is this type 5 acausality

[BestMGQScalerEver]

"The Akashic Records haven't been created yet in this era. That means a Child of Mana doesn't exist," he noted.

"About that…"

Neo pursed his lips.

"The Records stored inside the Akashic Record are 'eternal'."

"And?" Jack stopped munching on the candies while he appreciated the great bonfire. "The Records can't be destroyed. I know that."

"…"

Neo wanted to sigh.

'This is going to be hard to explain.'

"Eternal isn't simple. Eternal means having resistance to anything and everything."

"That's why the Records can't be destroyed, no?"

"You are right."

Neo nodded and explained.

"Eternal's resistance resists everything. Destruction, death, time, and anything else you can think of.

"Any type of harmful change is resisted."

"Now, what do you think will happen if someone goes to the past and destroys the Akashic Record before they were created?"

"Err… they will be destroyed."

"Logically, you are correct. But wrong at the same time.

"Destroying the Akashic Record before they are created is a 'change' and-"

"Records are immune to harmful change…"

Jack's eyes slowly widened.

"Holy mother of lord… Are you serious right now?! Is that even possible?!"

"Yes, the Records – the information stored inside the Akashic Record – exist beyond time. It is present everywhere: past, present, and future.

"This is an adaptive ability the Records gained when too many people tried to destroy it by going back in time."

Jack finally understood what Neo wanted to explain.

Since the Records were omnipresent, it was normal for a Child of Mana to exist in the current era.

While the Akashic Records didn't exist yet, the information did, thanks to it being Eternal.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Very blatant case of Acausality Type 5. It's immune to everything, including causality (Time and all type of changes).

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

I don't think this is acausality type 5 since here time does not equal causality. Since it is not an eternal now where the past and future are illusory or non-existent, and there is no mention of causality or time being interchangeable with causality, then this is not acausality type 5.

 

[Digital_Franz]

I don't think this is acausality type 5 since here time does not equal causality. Since it is not an eternal now where the past and future are illusory or non-existent, and there is no mention of causality or time being interchangeable with causality, then this is not acausality type 5.

The key here is: "it's immune to anything and everything". It is also said to be immune to any type of change and these changes are causality, with the example that even destroying it in the past (not really destroy it but prevent its creation) would not affect it (cause and effect are present with this example alone). So Acausality Type 5 is deserved here.

 

[Berga14]

The key here is: "it's immune to anything and everything". It is also said to be immune to any type of change and these changes are causality, with the example that even destroying it in the past (not really destroy it but prevent its creation) would not affect it (cause and effect are present with this example alone). So Acausality Type 5 is deserved here.

It says any harmfull changes not all changes so like "limited acasuality 5"? Idk if this is a thing

 

[Digital_Franz]

It says any harmfull changes not all changes so like "limited acasuality 5"? Idk if this is a thing

Harmfull change is just one thing it resists, the real point being that it resists everything.

 

[Berga14]

Harmfull change is just one thing it resists, the real point being that it resists everything.

It still says harmfull changes.

 

[Digital_Franz]

It still says harmfull changes.

Yeah harmfull changes are included in what it resists. Especially since these "harmfull changes" represent causality (preventing its creation to make it disappear).

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

The key here is: "it's immune to anything and everything". It is also said to be immune to any type of change and these changes are causality, with the example that even destroying it in the past (not really destroy it but prevent its creation) would not affect it (cause and effect are present with this example alone). So Acausality Type 5 is deserved here.

I see, 'changes' here is talking about 'affects,' since it is resistance to the changes/affects rather than being immutable to changes/affects. So, I still do not see acausality type 5. This should just be causality resistance.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I see, 'changes' here is talking about 'affects,' since it is resistance to the changes/affects rather than being immutable to changes/affects. So, I still do not see acausality type 5. This should just be causality resistance.

Resistant is being used the same as being invulnerable.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Resistant is being used the same as being invulnerable.

I see, but still, this NLF ability is too strict. Basically, there is no scan saying it is unchangeable as a result of being invulnerable to effects/changes.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Also time is equivalent to causality here.

Sword Techniques of Neo were made of three parts: Incantation, action/attack, landing of attack.

As soon as the Eighth stance's Incantation was completed, the attack had landed.

No one saw Neo strike because he never did.

That was the Eighth Stance.

The action of swinging the sword was erased from time.

Only its effect remained.