- 5,265
- 2,171
I was just joking*
-
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.
Removing Simon's type 4 Acausality
- Thread starter AloseVQ
- Start date
- 65
- 38
- Thread starter
- #42
On the contrary, that's what I'm asking you. Where does Acausality Type 4 coming from? What's happening here is not even working in another causal system. It's just not being influenced by a regular one. But that doesn't mean you're not bound by it or working with another irregular system. He's just not affected by its constraints. It has nothing to do with working in another system.
Those who are freed from this "with context" are type 4. Not type 5. For type 5 you need more than this kind of thing, but that's not even relevant to the topic at hand.
- 18,393
- 14,311
You don't need to be unbounded by it (2x times I have said), your premise is literally no different of that guy who just stated it as example and admitted not to be part of the disagreement, while you are taking it as a relevant requirement.
I think there is a misunderstanding on what is aca type 4 because it sounded the only reason here is there is no evidence of “independence”, while acausality type 4 does not even require this. They are beyond the cause and effect cycle is already enough to imply without any assumptions that they are operating in a different causality system.
Last edited:
- 3,046
- 2,598
Sorry, I don't know our current standards for acausality. I do plan to make a blog exploring the philosophy of Acausality and Immearusable Speed, but until then I won't be able to help with Acausality topics.
- 65
- 38
- Thread starter
- #45
I'm just making an example that can be in context, that's all. Also, contrary to what I said, there is nothing in what you said that fits with the current Aca 4 standards. After all, nothing you say shows anything about working on another system.
They are not beyond that. They are just unaffected in such a way that the necessary limitations of this do not work on them. Now I'll explain what I mean in elementary school language so that I don't get distorted again. By "constraint" I mean the effect of causality on the character without resistance to the causality manipulation. If a character uses a causality manipulation and changes history, the character will "necessarily" be affected if they have no resistance to it. And the people who are currently breaking causality, like Simon, will not be affected because such "limitations" will have no effect on them. But their causality will still work in that system. It doesn't mean that they have to work in a different and irregular system. And stop claiming that everyone else has misunderstood something, as if you were talking to a child. Valeska and I have already pointed out that this "independent" thing is an example. We didn't directly claim that this is type 4. We specifically and specifically said that it is also related to a different system of causality.
- 1,198
- 1,030
Guy who created the blog here (still salty how VSB didn't give a shit about giving credit to the writers 
).
The context hinges on Simon and his crews that were existentially no longer bound by the law of cycles, because they were no longer physical, merely existing as forms of feeling or emotion that are greater than the time and space themselves (they are materialized Spiral Energy which is fundamental anyway).
The bold and italic word is important because acausality is an existential status, which can't be addressed by resistance or immunity.
So I'll be neutral but leaning to disagree.
).The context hinges on Simon and his crews that were existentially no longer bound by the law of cycles, because they were no longer physical, merely existing as forms of feeling or emotion that are greater than the time and space themselves (they are materialized Spiral Energy which is fundamental anyway).
The bold and italic word is important because acausality is an existential status, which can't be addressed by resistance or immunity.
So I'll be neutral but leaning to disagree.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Stop using it as an example, if it is irrelevant, since the impression I get here is it is not an example, but rather a counter-assessment which is based on false reasoning.
And it is a normal logical flow, a whole context is talking about those characters who want to be outside the cycle, freed out of consequences and the fact they success it. You don't need an explicit statement for them to get into this conclusion. A simple understanding of the context works as well.
They are uneffected because they are beyond that, literally, as the context says.
But the fact is, and I doubt you read the entire context, there are no character with causality/fate manipulation in the context, it is a world itself with the setting.
The rest of the post seems meaningless since it relies on non-existent characters having some abilities and others resisting it !?!?
May I ask if they successes it indeed? A simple confirmation from other supporter.Guy who created the blog here (still salty how VSB didn't give a shit about giving credit to the writers
The context hinges on Simon and his crews that were existentially no longer bound by the law of cycles, because they were no longer physical, merely existing as forms of feeling or emotion that are greater than the time and space themselves (they are materialized Spiral Energy which is fundamental anyway).
The bold and italic word is important because acausality is an existential status, which can't be addressed by resistance or immunity.
So I'll be neutral but leaning to disagree.
- 1,198
- 1,030
- 18,393
- 14,311
The context in the Imgur appears to be their "plan".
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 519
- 515
She meant did they succeed* in overcoming causality and Fate.
- 18,393
- 14,311
My bad, I was on my phone, and now I am at my PC. My German keyboard does mess up sometimes.
- 1,198
- 1,030
Oh, you mean whether they already broke through it, not just in progress?
| "Nia entered the cockpit of the Lagann, along with Simon. Each Lagann merged into Gurren Lagann. It was anger. It was sadness. It was compassion. It was every emotion one could think of. The feelings that each of us had in our respective universes appeared in the form of a drill, breaking through the wall. It was appearing in the form of two shapes and sizes, and they became one. If you have no choice but to fight, do not hesitate. We are not afraid to ask for power. If there's a wall, we'll hit and break it, if there's no way, we'll make it with our own hands! No, more. Breaks through cause, effect and fate, the cry of life resounds in the galaxy yet, more. Engrave the feelings of a friend in this body, and turn infinite darkness into light! -That's it. A power greater than the stars, greater than the galaxies. A power greater than dimension and time." |
(I don't know the Imgur but this is the translation I used)
I will say it's both. They broke it already (first bold) but they would break through the next level of cause, effect, and fate if they are hindering their ways (second bold). Should they hadn't breaking it, the context wouldn't make sense.
- 5,265
- 2,171
If they didn't beak it*
- 18,393
- 14,311
Is my understanding consistent with the context?
- 1,198
- 1,030
I don't think I 100% get it but it's okey dokey.
The point of Gurren Lagann is making the impossible possible, by carving your own path.
- 568
- 639
There is not even one statement about the existence of these characters in the scan. It just says that they break cause, effect and fate and if they are confronted again they will break them again like breaking the wall. This only refers to their resistance to it anyway. The fact that you randomly use things that are not even mentioned in the scans such as "they became abstract, they are above the law of it" shows that you are not interpreting properly.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Resistance to which character's ability? Because they are talking about the world's setting. They are not resisting any specific ability in this context.
- 1,198
- 1,030
Buddy, I'm the one who created the cosmology blog, which was turned into a page.
They were abstract because they themselves were materalized Spiral Energy (a fundamental power which represents everything that are spiral-shaped, including the transcendental double helix of causality), which was explained to be greater than time and space. The premise of the context is, that they were breaking the cause, effect, and fate whilst unifing their infinite versions across the multiverse and made the new one. And when they were integrated with the multiverse, they became abstact.
I suggest you to read the entire page rather than ignorantly reading it scan by scan.
- 18,393
- 14,311
word by word*
- 1,198
- 1,030
- 568
- 639
Resistance to manipulation of fate and causality. Are you really asking that? There is not even 1 statement in the scan that refers to a different system/different causal cycle. There is only the feat of "breaking it" which shows that they are superior enough to resist it. It's not a reference to a different cycle from that causality cycle, it's just a reference to the resistance of those characters to it. Because there is no context that shows a different system.
And no. Stop with this nonsense. You don't need someone to use these abilities against you in order to gain resistence to causality and fate manipulation.
- 568
- 639
The fact that they are abstract has nothing to do with type 4. The point is whether breaking causality here refers to a completely different system of causality. It has nothing to do with working in a different system, including destroying and creating their own versions of the infinite universe across the multiverse. What the context should provide is already written on the Acausality page when defining type 4 "operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality". There is nothing in the context you present that shows this.
- 1,198
- 1,030
At this point, you aren't arguing about the context, but the standards.
You don't need a specific statement as such. Breaking through causality and making a new one after fusing your entire possible cause, effect, and fate (past, present, future. All times, and all places) as oneself, is a blatant feat for Type 4 Acausality (yes, I'm changing my stance from neutral to disagree).
You are right. This isn't Type 4 Acausality, it's above baseline, in fact.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
How did this thread get so long? There is no reference to the state of existence here, except for the ridiculous things like unaffected by causality and fate is aca5 in the context. Breaking or blocking causality is by no means a state of existence or Type 4 acausality.
Because there is no context that it is indepented of causality or that it operates under different laws and causality, there is no context according to the state of existence.
Because there is no context that it is indepented of causality or that it operates under different laws and causality, there is no context according to the state of existence.
- 1,198
- 1,030
Of course there is. They are acuasal because they are abstract, and abstract is a state of existence.
- 18,393
- 14,311
This type of mindset that one needs to demand a strict, explicit, non-negotiable statement because one can’t draw a simple conclusion based on understanding the context is rigid, demanding, and lacking flexibility, respectfully speaking. (Black-and-White Thinking)
This is not about arguing the context (because you did not even read the page), so you are drawing this conclusion based on nitpicking the text and demanding something, but about whether you think it deserves its rating.
Breaking through something can imply AP, sure. If it is without any context or any information, I won’t disagree with it, but here it talks about abstractness. In the first line, it talks about the cycle of “cause and effect” and being victimized by it. So, it refers to our usual system in real life. The sole intention here is that those characters don’t want to be part of it; no matter what, they will break the chain.
Nothing here implies “resistance” because they are not resisting something. They are going beyond it. So, to demand from the opposition to prove negative is uproarious.
Also, don't take my words as personal, but the OP himself shows how he was nitpicking the text to draw a conclusion by separating each sentence and presenting an argument for it.
This is not about arguing the context (because you did not even read the page), so you are drawing this conclusion based on nitpicking the text and demanding something, but about whether you think it deserves its rating.
Breaking through something can imply AP, sure. If it is without any context or any information, I won’t disagree with it, but here it talks about abstractness. In the first line, it talks about the cycle of “cause and effect” and being victimized by it. So, it refers to our usual system in real life. The sole intention here is that those characters don’t want to be part of it; no matter what, they will break the chain.
Nothing here implies “resistance” because they are not resisting something. They are going beyond it. So, to demand from the opposition to prove negative is uproarious.
Just to fix your sentence, you mean there is no “straightforward statement” because there is a context.
Also, don't take my words as personal, but the OP himself shows how he was nitpicking the text to draw a conclusion by separating each sentence and presenting an argument for it.
Last edited:
Tanin_iver
He/Him- 519
- 515
Not even a page long discussion, thread too is merely two days old. What's the rush?
- 4,151
- 4,864
Really the context is breaking free from the restrictions of the verses fate and causality. Physically breaking through it isn't really a debunk either as a verse can have different ways of portraying how they "break through" it with this case being rather literal.
- 1,058
- 2,436
Thanks for the added context. SMH This is why we should always start by calling verse supporters for things like this.Guy who created the blog here (still salty how VSB didn't give a shit about giving credit to the writers
The context hinges on Simon and his crews that were existentially no longer bound by the law of cycles, because they were no longer physical, merely existing as forms of feeling or emotion that are greater than the time and space themselves (they are materialized Spiral Energy which is fundamental anyway).
The bold and italic word is important because acausality is an existential status, which can't be addressed by resistance or immunity.
So I'll be neutral but leaning to disagree.
Disagree with the downgrade.
- 18,393
- 14,311
It makes no sense to be even physical because the whole context talks to break through that chain of cause and effect. It is more talking about breaking through laws to achieve something; in this case, it is talking about cause and effect and not 10 meters walls.
How people even concluded it to be resistance or AP is something beyond my imagination.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
Ehhh...What are you saying? I'm trying to make a connection between what I said here and what you said, but unfortunately I couldn't make an analogy.
Can you guys show a statement describing the state of existence? Because there is no connection between abstraction and working in different causalities. The abstract existential state and the existential state operating in different causality are very different things.
- 65
- 38
- Thread starter
- #73
Noted.
- 65
- 38
- Thread starter
- #74
I'm not trying to rush. If you read the last messages above, the only thing between them is "it's a resistance" and "no it's type 4". So isn't it more logical to wait for other people's input instead of this kind of stuff?
- 1,198
- 1,030
Let's not go that far first, would this convince you?
Edit: of course the statements are in the page, silly! But if y'll want me to elaborate it here (I'm lazy...), then I'll do it.
- 1,058
- 2,436
I feel like you’re grasping at straws to be honest.
1. They were bound by causality.
2. They evolved into a state of materialized spiral energy.
3. They broke causality itself not through brute force, but on account of this form.
4. Therefore this new form is unbound by standard causality. Heck, you could interpret this as acausality type 5.
This isn’t remotely hard to follow, you’re just over-complicating everything.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
Breaking the law doesn't mean you're still operating under a different law/causality as an existence. Even working in different laws is sometimes not Type 4 Acausality. As DT said here;
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,216
- 2,741
Dude, this has nothing to do with going forward XD
We don't assume this anyway, because having an abstract existence and breaking causality doesn't necessarily mean that your existence operates under different laws or is independent of causality. Both are completely different
- 18,393
- 14,311
Yeah, do we really need to take you seriously? You could not even read my sentence and GreatIskandar14045's sentence properly.
I will reply to someone else; this will be a waste of time.
- 1,198
- 1,030
I'm saying that we can still go with Type 4 even without the abstract existence route.
Similar threads
