• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Question regarding Type 5 Acausality

Yemma670 said:
Type 5
Click to expand...
The statement is a little vague for me. You can still be in a system of causality where effect and cause have no meaning in that world. That's why he said:
“this world” --> can mean, they got a different system that we humans can't comprehend (due to our limitations for such world)
Is there no context except this statement?
 
Dread said:
This is why I think personally that acc type 5 is high and not easy to reach that level. (1A- the requirement was actually not a bad idea).
But you got my point. That high level of Acausality is not easy to reach. You need evidence to support it. Just claiming that you can't be interacted with is not enough evidence to qualify it. Literally, as I explained above, you still can type 4 acc for that. It requires more context and clear evidence. Beyond causality can also mean he is in a different one which is higher than the current one.
Click to expand...
Not helpful. A 1-A's Acausality 5 would still be negated by a High 1-A's Causality Manipulation. There's even a hierarchy in Tier 0 so it's applicable in nowhere. There's a reason people decided to fuse Types 2 and 3 Nondualism.
 
 
Dread said:
The statement is a little vague for me. You can still be in a system of causality where effect and cause have no meaning in that world. That's why he said:
“this world” --> can mean, they got a different system that we humans can't comprehend (due to our limitations for such world)
Is there no context except this statement?
Click to expand...
It is what it is. A little bias here and there
 
ÆONS said:
Not helpful. A 1-A's Acausality 5 would still be negated by a High 1-A's Causality Manipulation. There's even a hierarchy in Tier 0 so it's applicable in nowhere. There's a reason people decided to fuse Types 2 and 3 Nondualism.
Click to expand...
They both are 1-A. I am talking about the fact that you need proof that you are outside all systems, just being outside one system does not necessarily mean you are outside all systems.
 
Yemma670 said:
Yes, she became a higher dimensional abstract entity. Big deal
Click to expand...
Did you not bother to actually read the scans? Jeez, it almost as if you think it doesn’t qualify for Acausality Type 5. Also bias involves in all parties so not a fair point, but we getting technically off topic.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Did you not bother to actually read the scans? Jeez, it almost as if you think it doesn’t qualify for Acausality Type 5. Also bias involves in all parties so not a fair point, but we getting technically off topic.
Click to expand...
You were the same person proposing an overly strict acausality type 5

And I've shown you an instance of getting it with that statement
 
Dread said:
It literally said: she is completely outside the system, and she can't interact with those in that universe.
Click to expand...
Nice. I mean, she's in a higher plane

That's what it means.

With no cause or effect to this world

But yeah, acausality type 5
 
Yemma670 said:
You were the same person proposing an overly strict acausality type 5

And I've shown you an instance of getting it with that statement
Click to expand...
I didn’t propose a overly strict Acausality. It is literally in the requirement for burden of proof. I say this multiple times and now you accusing me of proposing it when it is also literally in the OP.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Yemma670 said:
Nice. I mean, she's in a higher plane

That's what it means.

With no cause or effect to this world

But yeah, acausality type 5
Click to expand...
That is due to our adjustment. The isolation field will only stop interference from one direction. Even though it will reject all attempts from the outside, it is still possible to guide a victim in from the inside. Only targets that your witch side unconsciously seeks will enter this world. After such limitation, if the force known as 'law of cycle' seeks to contact Akemi Homura still. Then the only way it will enter is through being captured by the labyrinth as a victim and be forced to materialize in this world. In that case, us Incubator will then finally be able to ascertain the puzzle behind magic girl's disappearance, and observe it directly. In fact, the characters that existed in the real world already joined in strange ways. What is more fascinating, a girl that neither existed in past memory nor future possibility, someone who should have no connection, no cause or effect to this world, joined seemlessly in your world. Well, there was never any need to search, from the beginning you have made things easier for us, Akemi Homura. Even before this all started, you have always called the 'law of cycles' by the name of Kaname Madoka.
Click to expand...
 
Pfft, even Anos has more justification for type 5 than Madoka, and Everything says no, he doesn't qualify
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Did you not bother to actually read the scans? Jeez, it almost as if you think it doesn’t qualify for Acausality Type 5. Also bias involves in all parties so not a fair point, but we getting technically off topic.
Click to expand...
I read the scans and I completely agree with Yemma. Madoka's not Type 5, just Type 4 at best and the scan of her being "beyond causality" was taken out of context. Now, no more derailment about PMMM
 
ÆONS said:
I read the scans and I completely agree with Yemma. Madoka's not Type 5, just Type 4 at best and the scan of her being "beyond causality" was taken out of context. Now, no more derailment about PMMM
Click to expand...
I believe it has to do with cause and effect which is directly tied to being space and time, but that does require you to go to the thread for clarification on Acausality Type 5.
 
ÆONS said:
I read the scans and I completely agree with Yemma. Madoka's not Type 5, just Type 4 at best and the scan of her being "beyond causality" was taken out of context. Now, no more derailment about PMMM
Click to expand...
Even before this all started, you have always called the 'law of cycles' by the name of Kaname Madoka.

I am unsure, but there is some more evidence of her being outside the system. Welp, I don't know where people are discussing it.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
I believe it has to do with cause and effect which is directly tied to being space and time, but that does require you to go to the thread for clarification on Acausality Type 5.
Click to expand...
Dread said:
Even before this all started, you have always called the 'law of cycles' by the name of Kaname Madoka.

I am unsure, but there is some more evidence of her being outside the system. Welp, I don't know where people are discussing it.
Click to expand...
I will not respond to any more comments about PMMM. It is off topic.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
I believe it has to do with cause and effect which is directly tied to being space and time, but that does require you to go to the thread for clarification on Acausality Type 5.
Click to expand...
Come now, that's false. In fact the only time cause and effect was made mention in the anime was that one statement

It specified "this world". Should be type 4 at best but here we are
 
So being outside completely of the system aka he created the system does not qualify for acc type 5? Even if he stated explicitly that he is fully outside the system since he created it technically? Even tho the context say he is creator of everything?
 
Basically being completely outside all systems of Causality is a bit NLF because of Tier 1 and stuff, so Type 5 should only be outside the systems to the level that the series has evidence of having. But that can be easily be described as a variation of Type 4, so Type 5 is mostly focused on the being untouchable aspect of being acausal so having evidence of that is necessary now.

This is the simple explanation of what the conversations had in the rewrite thread that led to this change was about.
 
Just putting in my two cents but

Essentially from what I’ve gathered, the current ruling is essentially, in the event of a statement of being unbound from cause and effect, more evidence is necessary to prove they are unbound from cause and effect, and instead that they are simply follow a different system of cause and effect, usually specifically a system that allows them to interact with damage caused to them

the logic is essentially that this is a much reasonable lower interpretation of the statement but my issue with it is essentially this

There’s no possible world where such a conclusion is actually an interpretation of the original statement in most cases

The current conclusion isn’t actually “we need more evidence for something anyway”

The ruling is right now

“I don’t think that this statement is evidence enough, so I’m going to say one specific part of the statement is wrong, and assume that “unbound from causality actually means” has “a type of acausality which has everything the statement would normally imply. Except for that one thing I don’t like, and we can just assume what it actually meant is that it has a system of causality where it does everything except what I don’t like”

what I mean by this is, in order for this conclusion to work (namely the idea that type 5 with lack of evidence should be downgraded to type 4), the argument essentially alleges that because the statement needs more evidence, we must use a different interpretation where the original statement actually meant something entirely different, namely that the user actually follows a different system of causality which the series in question never alludes exists, and usually with the implication that it is specifically a system that allows the user to be interacted with by people of our normal causality


this isn’t even really a low interpretation, it’s actively twisting the original statements in an entirely different direction. A low interpretation would be that it only refers to things insofar are mentioned within the series, not that the series itself has an entirely different set of rules which are never implied

It would be one thing if it was that the statements of being unbound from causality needed more evidence to be taken as true, but the thing being said is instead “oh it’s actually type 4“ which is just


what

tldr. Current ruling seems to be a case of vs battles thinking where “lowest interpretation“ means “assume weakest possible idea unless otherwise stated” when the two aren’t the same.
 
I share a pretty similar view that Yobo_Blue has in that we can't really interpret the statement of "this character/beings transcends causality entirely" into meaning anything that is different. It would be one thing for that statement to be contradicted by some lad attempting to and succeeding in affecting them despite their transcendence over causality, but if there's no instance of anything like that happening and their acausality is never contradicted or is even further supported by additional evidence then I see no reason to try and twist the facts into enforcing a narrative that they actually are in a higher system of causality when that was never shown or presented to us by the story. It's just forcing an interpretation of a statement to suit a narrative that is not true regardless of one's intentions.

Additionally:
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.
Click to expand...
I find this statement to be a bit problematic because if there is a character in a story in which there are multiple facts and statements that affirms their perfect acausality, yet there's not a single instance of an individual trying to affect them or them being changed or disturbed by any effect—simply because that would be pointless—then that would be enough grounds to make them Type 4 (to assume that they exist in a higher system of causality) and not grant Type 5 because their acausality is featless despite many statements affirming otherwise. If I am wrong on this, then please cite examples.

Basically, instead of putting an inaccurate label over a character due to lack of evidence for Type 5, I believe it would be better to just... not grant acausalty at all and simply do a "wait-and-see" approach to it.

EDIT: I forgot to make an actual response to this but here I go.
Basically being completely outside all systems of Causality is a bit NLF because of Tier 1 and stuff, so Type 5 should only be outside the systems to the level that the series has evidence of having. But that can be easily be described as a variation of Type 4, so Type 5 is mostly focused on the being untouchable aspect of being acausal so having evidence of that is necessary now.

This is the simple explanation of what the conversations had in the rewrite thread that led to this change was about.
Click to expand...
I completely understand where you are coming from but in my view putting a potentially inaccurate label to a certain character when the better option would have been to either just give resistance to causality manipulation or even do nothing would not really rectify the situation. And being beyond all systems of causality might sound a bit NFL-ish to you—it does to me—but if there's not enough material to contradict such a thing then I see no reason to twist the facts and impose Type 4 when better alternatives exist.
 
Last edited:
Everything12 said:
Basically being completely outside all systems of Causality is a bit NLF because of Tier 1 and stuff, so Type 5 should only be outside the systems to the level that the series has evidence of having. But that can easily be described as a variation of Type 4, so Type 5 is mostly focused on the being untouchable aspect of being acausal so having evidence of that is necessary now.

This is the simple explanation of what the conversations had in the rewrite thread that led to this change was about.
Click to expand...
Wrong, type 4 means you have a different system of causality. Type 5 is outside all systems, hence why it is impossible to be touched unless another character is type 5.
 
Yobo_Blue said:
Just putting in my two cents but

Essentially from what I’ve gathered, the current ruling is essentially, in the event of a statement of being unbound from cause and effect, more evidence is necessary to prove they are unbound from cause and effect, and instead that they are simply follow a different system of cause and effect, usually specifically a system that allows them to interact with damage caused to them

the logic is essentially that this is a much reasonable lower interpretation of the statement but my issue with it is essentially this

There’s no possible world where such a conclusion is actually an interpretation of the original statement in most cases

The current conclusion isn’t actually “we need more evidence for something anyway”

The ruling is right now

“I don’t think that this statement is evidence enough, so I’m going to say one specific part of the statement is wrong, and assume that “unbound from causality actually means” has “a type of acausality which has everything the statement would normally imply. Except for that one thing I don’t like, and we can just assume what it actually meant is that it has a system of causality where it does everything except what I don’t like”

what I mean by this is, in order for this conclusion to work (namely the idea that type 5 with lack of evidence should be downgraded to type 4), the argument essentially alleges that because the statement needs more evidence, we must use a different interpretation where the original statement actually meant something entirely different, namely that the user actually follows a different system of causality which the series in question never alludes exists, and usually with the implication that it is specifically a system that allows the user to be interacted with by people of our normal causality


this isn’t even really a low interpretation, it’s actively twisting the original statements in an entirely different direction. A low interpretation would be that it only refers to things insofar are mentioned within the series, not that the series itself has an entirely different set of rules which are never implied

It would be one thing if it was that the statements of being unbound from causality needed more evidence to be taken as true, but the thing being said is instead “oh it’s actually type 4“ which is just


what

tldr. Current ruling seems to be a case of vs battles thinking where “lowest interpretation“ means “assume weakest possible idea unless otherwise stated” when the two aren’t the same.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. And, with that said:

@Antvasima

Would you care to bring some attention to this thread?
 
Solely from reading the OP.

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?

Because a lot of series make claims like that without doing anything to establish that they're difficult to interact with. Almost every single character with a statement like this will have anti-feats.

So we require an explicit confirmation that it makes them difficult to interact with, rather than making the leap ourselves.

We do this sort of thing in a lot of areas where fiction often says something but presents it completely differently.

I hope that answers all the questions that exist here.
 
Agnaa said:
Solely from reading the OP.

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?

Because a lot of series make claims like that without doing anything to establish that they're difficult to interact with. Almost every single character with a statement like this will have anti-feats.

So we require an explicit confirmation that it makes them difficult to interact with, rather than making the leap ourselves.

We do this sort of thing in a lot of areas where fiction often says something but presents it completely differently.

I hope that answers all the questions that exist here.
Click to expand...
This is not the topic my brother, the main topic is if there are no such anti-feats, then it should qualify as one. The rewording of current type 5 needs explicit and clear and detailed statements to be qualified as one which is his whole point
 
No, I answered the topic.

We don't give creation feats E = MC^2, even if there's no anti-feats, unless the series explicitly establishes that E = MC^2 applies.

I don't actually believe you when you say that there's cases without anti-feats where the series doesn't explicitly establish that such a quality makes them difficult to interact with. Such characters would have to do literally nothing in the entire story, and have literally nothing happen to them. They do exist, but they're so rare that I don't believe that you're talking about them.
 
Agnaa said:
Solely from reading the OP.

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?

Because a lot of series make claims like that without doing anything to establish that they're difficult to interact with. Almost every single character with a statement like this will have anti-feats.

So we require an explicit confirmation that it makes them difficult to interact with, rather than making the leap ourselves.

We do this sort of thing in a lot of areas where fiction often says something but presents it completely differently.

I hope that answers all the questions that exist here.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer. Responding later today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grabbing_dragon
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Elyartaker
Acausality Type 5
Replies
8
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
1K
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
SukunaEditz
Why does Unicron have type 4 Acausality, but says he exists beyond cause and effect?
Replies
2
Views
914
SukunaEditz
SukunaEditz
Laviossiii
Question about Acausality and Beyond Dimensional Existance
Replies
2
Views
667
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Back
Top