Question regarding Type 5 Acausality

[Ultima_Reality]

So, very recently, we had a revision on our standards for Type 5 Acausality. A "rewording," more specifically, whose initial proposal was to replace the old description of Type 5 with this:

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside all systems of causality. Even interacting with them normally is virtually impossible, as any effect that enacts change that relies on a system of causality does not affect them.

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for a irregular relationship with causality otherwise.

So, essentially, the idea was to establish that being stated to exist beyond time, on its own, was not enough to qualify for Type 5, as that'd also require a statement of existing beyond causality. A decent chunk of discussion on the thread revolved around this: Whether causality depends on time, and whether existing beyond the latter necessarily means you also exist beyond the former, with the conclusion reached being that it doesn't.

Halfway through the thread, though, the OP decided to write a small addendum to the page, that being:

Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

After asking him about this matter off-site, I was told that this means simply existing beyond cause and effect is not enough to qualify for Type 5, and ontop of that you also need statements of being difficult to normally interact with in virtue of that.

Quite frankly, I just want to ask (As someone who largely didn't participate in the thread): Why is that, exactly? Cause and effect, by definition, are just the principle of "An event is dependent on (Caused by) another," so why does existing beyond that not qualify for Type 5, on its own?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Beyond does not necessarily means transcending it, I guess

 

[Sniper670]

So, very recently, we had a revision on our standards for Type 5 Acausality. A "rewording," more specifically, whose initial proposal was to replace the old description of Type 5 with this:



So, essentially, the idea was to establish that being stated to exist beyond time, on its own, was not enough to qualify for Type 5, as that'd also require a statement of existing beyond causality. A decent chunk of discussion on the thread revolved around this: Whether causality depends on time, and whether existing beyond the latter necessarily means you also exist beyond the former, with the conclusion reached being that it doesn't.

Halfway through the thread, though, the OP decided to write a small addendum to the page, that being:



After asking him about this matter off-site, I was told that this means simply existing beyond cause and effect is not enough to qualify for Type 5, and ontop of that you also need statements of being difficult to normally interact with in virtue of that.

Quite frankly, I just want to ask (As someone who largely didn't participate in the thread): Why is that, exactly? Cause and effect, by definition, are just the principle of "An event is dependent on (Caused by) another," so why does existing beyond that not qualify for Type 5, on its own?

It's more like most people just haven't taken a good look at what "Transcendence" means. Now here's what Google says :

Existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.

So yes. Beyond is transcendence. The wiki likes to make a lot of things up and make differences that do not exist

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Beyond does not necessarily means transcending it, I guess

beyond

1. further away in the distance (than something): 2. outside or after (a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

In one of the definitions for Beyond , specifically outside or after (a stated limit):

 

[Sniper670]

Thank you

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I have see ppl doing this and having this say. I want you to look up the explicit definition of beyond and then compared it to transcend.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

By default, beyond doesn’t mean transcend all systems of causality unless you have very specific statements that say they transcend the system of causality rather quite literally.

 

[Sniper670]

By default, beyond doesn’t mean transcend all systems of causality unless you have very specific statements that say they transcend the system of causality rather quite literally.

"I exist beyond causality"

"I transcend causality"

What exactly is the difference here that beyond doesn't mean transcend

 

[HammerStrikes219]

"I exist beyond causality"

"I transcend causality"

What exactly is the difference here that beyond doesn't mean transcend

It means they could operate on a type 4 Ascauality.

Type 4: Irregular Causality: Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This grants them resistance to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, and Precognition, among others.

If they acting out of the regular causality system, then it is irregular Ascauality. I will have to inform you that means any cause and effect will technically been in reverse.

The effect comes in first, the cause is second and so on and so forth.


I also believe that @Everything12 want to mention the nature and state of being is important to Type 5 Acausality and there isn’t any anti feats to such as being interacting with normally and some other ones.

 

[Sniper670]

You don't understand then. If you're beyond causality it's type 5.

Most of type 4 are there simply because of anti feats.

In fact the only reason why Slime for example, doesn't qualify for type 5 is because even though they exist beyond the laws of their world(causal laws are one of them in verse) , they can still be interacted with

 

[Sniper670]

It means they could operate on a type 4 Ascauality.

Type 4: Irregular Causality: Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This grants them resistance to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, and Precognition, among others.

If they acting out of the regular causality system, then it is irregular Ascauality. I will have to inform you that means any cause and effect will technically been in reverse.

The effect comes in first, the cause is second and so on and so forth.


I also believe that @Everything12 want to mention the nature and state of being is important to Type 5 Acausality and there isn’t any anti feats to such as being interacting with normally and some other ones.

That's besides the fact you failed to answer my questions

What is the difference between transcends and beyond in relation to causality

 

[HammerStrikes219]

That's besides the fact you failed to answer my questions

What is the difference between transcends and beyond in relation to causality

It is the definition that we using for beyond and transcending it as well as other things.

You are arguing that we should take one definition of beyond that is different from actually transcending the system of causality completely. Ie you transcend over a regular and irregular causality system.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also it is not even a fact, you just equaling beyond = transcending in this case. I starting to think we should address what exactly does count for more clarification if anything

 

[ImmortalDread]

beyond

1. further away in the distance (than something): 2. outside or after (a…

dictionary.cambridge.org

In one of the definitions for Beyond , specifically outside or after (a stated limit):

Still does not transcend it. TF?

People who don't accept beyond space-time, are also do not accept transcending space-time. See? You need context, not only beyond.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also it is not even a fact, you just equaling beyond = transcending in this case. I starting to think we should address what exactly does count for more clarification if anything

Exactly, it matters the context. Being beyond does not clearly always mean transcending it. I had the same argument with endless and countless and infinite lol.

 

[Sniper670]

Transcend is beyond

The reason being beyond time and space is not grounds for anything is because it could be interpreted in a distance sense

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Exactly, it matters the context. Being beyond does not clearly always mean transcending it. I had the same argument with endless and countless and infinite lol.

Yes, beyond doesn’t have to mean transcending in a literal sense. I don’t get the point of having to beyond = transcending outside of using a specific meaning behind beyond. That is just arguments of semantics too

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yes, beyond doesn’t have to mean transcending in a literal sense. I don’t get the point of having to beyond = transcending outside of using a specific meaning behind beyond. That is just arguments of semantics too

Yap, agreed ^^

 

[ImmortalDread]

Transcend is beyond

Again, it matters the context, they are not equal to the same meaning.

 

[Sniper670]

Yes, beyond doesn’t have to mean transcending in a literal sense. I don’t get the point of having to beyond = transcending outside of using a specific meaning behind beyond. That is just arguments of semantics too

"Beyond Time and space"

The statement above can be interpreted in two ways.
1. Either it's referring to being outside of time and space in a distance sense
Or
2. Qualitatively Superior to time and space

"Beyond Causality"

This statement can be interpreted in one way and one way alone. Qualitative Superiority over causality.

I dare you to try to find another interpretation for this

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The statement above can be interpreted in two ways.
1. Either it's referring to being outside of time and space in a distance sense
Or
2. Qualitatively Superior to time and space



This statement can be interpreted in one way and one way alone. Qualitative Superiority over causality.

I dare you to try to find another interpretation for this

That can also mean it is outside of casuality. Your argument is relying on that the interpretation used for existing outside of time and space should not apply to beyond causality ie. Regular casuality system.


Honestly, this just getting into doing a staff discussion regarding what should been defined in this case.

 

[ImmortalDread]

That can also mean it is outside of casuality. Your argument is relying that the interpretation used for existing outside of time and space should not apply to beyond causality ie. Regular casuality system.


Honestly, this just getting into doing a staff discussion regarding what should been defined in this case.

Agreed ^^

 

[Sniper670]

That can also mean it is outside of casuality.

So type 5 then. Back to square one

 

[HammerStrikes219]

So type 5 then. Back to square one

It can been Type 4, not 5 ngl.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So type 5 then. Back to square one

Not really. It just also means they can operate on a different system of causality.

 

[Sniper670]

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality

So it's type 5

Beyond Causality =Transcend causality

 

[HammerStrikes219]

“Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond it's feats.”

This is referring to the state of being and nature of the character as they have to been completely independent of cause and effect ie. They transcending over irregular and regular causality.

You are deliberately nitpicking specific words in there

 

[ImmortalDread]

Going outside causality does not really mean he is outside the whole system, laws of cause and effect. He can still have a different system than a regular system.

 

[Sniper670]

I'm not nitpicking as the rest are irrelevant to the discussion at hand

If he's outside of causality and cannot be interacted with, it's type 5.

I mentioned that in my earlier messages no?

 

[Sniper670]

Going outside causality does not really mean he is outside the whole system, laws of cause and effect. He can still have a different system than a regular system.

Being beyond causality is grounds for type 5

Are you trying to argue with the wiki standards and basic grammar?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I'm not nitpicking as the rest are irrelevant to the discussion at hand

If he's outside of causality and cannot be interacted with, it's type 5.

I mentioned that in my earlier messages no?

You did.

Also it is a requirement for a character of being unable to interact with normally.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Being beyond causality is grounds for type 5

Are you trying to argue with the wiki standards and basic grammar?

It still depends on the context. Wiki standards are not always permanent. As you see, many wikis policies are changing.

 

[Sniper670]

You did.

Also it is a requirement for a character of being unable to interact with normally.

Of course.

OP is asking whether being beyond causality is the same as transcendence.. Which is a resounding yes

 

[Sniper670]

It still depends on the context. Wiki standards are not always permanent. As you see, many wikis policies are changing.

Suree......

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Of course.

OP is asking whether being beyond causality is the same as transcendence.. Which is a resounding yes

It is not a resounding yes. Also I already asked for @Everything12 ‘s input regarding the OP and most likely he mixed up with existing outside of casuality with transcending a system of causality and this requires us to likely clarify on Type 4 even more.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also not to mention I have to say this again since it is likely a mistake as @Everything12 did put the definition in there not realizing it will cause a confusion on this regard too

 

[Sniper670]

It is not a resounding yes. Also I already asked for @Everything12 ‘s input regarding the OP and most likely he mixed up with existing outside of casuality with transcending a system of causality and this requires us to likely clarify on Type 4 even more.

Look at the Acausality type 5 page.

It's type 5 if "I'm beyond causality"

You failed to make the difference. Type 5 literally confirms what I said.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Look at the Acausality type 5 page.

It's type 5 if "I'm beyond causality"

You failed to make the difference. Type 5 literally confirms what I said.

Only because of the current definition of Type has “Outside causality”. Also I don’t see how I failed to make the difference other than you not wanting to admit there are other interpretations for beyond.

 

[Sniper670]

Also not to mention I have to say this again since it is likely a mistake as @Everything12 did put the definition in there not realizing it will cause a confusion on this regard too

But you're the confused one tho?

It's your own fault if you don't understand how it works. What's been put there is the right thing

 

[Sniper670]

Only because of the current definition of Type has “Outside causality”. Also I don’t see how I failed to make the difference other than you not wanting to admit there are other interpretations for beyond.

Alright. Explain the difference between beyond causality and transcends causality


You never answered that iirc