Removing Simon's type 4 Acausality

[AloseVQ]

I'm going to get straight to the point and give you a brief summary of why Simon has Aca 4:

When Nia is trapped in the cycle of cause and effect, Simon breaks the cause and effect barrier to save her. And it is said that Simon transcends fate, cause and effect.

But was that really what the statements were saying? Or should this grant type 4 Acausality?

No. That's not what the statements were saying. Although the profile says that Simon "transcends" them, it is never mentioned in the scans in the Imgur link linked in his profile. It only says that they broke through them and got out of that cause and effect barrier/circle. In fact, what is written in the profile and called "transcending" is indicated with "突破 (とっぱ)", which shows that what is happening there is not transcending, but breaking through.

Line where "突破" is used:

因果も運命も突破して、命の叫びが銀河に響く!

Breaks through cause, effect and fate, the cry of life resounds in the galaxy yet, more. (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)

And not only that. There are statements to support that this is not a "transcendence" but a feat of breaking

壁があったら殴って壊す、道がなければこの手で作る!

If there's a wall, we'll hit and break it, if there's no way, we'll make it with our own hands! (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)

それぞれの宇宙でそれぞれが抱えていた想いが、壁を突き破る形に、ドリルという形になって現れていた。

The feelings that each of us had in our respective universes appeared in the form of a drill, breaking through the wall. (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)

突破 meanings: 1. breaking through; breakthrough; penetration, 2. surmounting (a difficulty); overcoming; getting over; accomplishing (an aim); reaching (a goal), 3. exceeding; passing; rising above

壊す meanings: 1. to break; to destroy; to demolish, 2. to wreck; to ruin; to spoil; to damage, 3. to break (a bill, etc.)

突き破る meanings: 1. to break through; to penetrate; to pierce

Note: Even if the third meaning of "突破" can be translated as "exceed, rising above", as I explained previously, the context of the scene is that they break that barrier and if there is a wall in their way, they will break it too.

BTW, my point is not that this statement can never be type 4, but that without further context it can be in different stuffs such as resistance to fate and causality manipulation or nullification against fate and causality manipulation. These statements lack the "working with different causal systems" principle of this case.

Agree: ZetsuEarly0, Burkiqwe, Gasper, Larssx, Valeska24, Georredannea15, Theglassman12

Disagree: GreatIskandar14035, ProfectusInfinity, ImmortalDread, FoxySonicMaster108, BluudyManikin777

Neutral: KLOL506, DarkDragonMedeus

 

[ZetsuEarly0]

I totally agree.

 

[Burkiqwe]

I agree, this has nothing to do with acausality.

 

[Gasper]

Agree

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Sounds like he becomes unbound by causality still type 4. Type 4 doesn't require statements of transcending.

 

[Gasper]

Sounds like he becomes unbound by causality still type 4. Type 4 doesn't require statements of transcending.

No it's not. It's an AP feat.

 

[AloseVQ]

Sounds like he becomes unbound by causality still type 4. Type 4 doesn't require statements of transcending.

Just because you can break something doesn't mean you are independent of it. This feat alone is too lacking to make that claim.

 

[FoxySonicMaster108]

I would easily agree, if this were Type 5 Acausality, but since this is Type 4, I'll wait for some other responses, although as of right now I kinda disagree, "breaking" in this context looks like it implies the same thing. But I'll wait before I give my final thoughts.

 

[AloseVQ]

I would easily agree, if this were Type 5 Acausality, but since this is Type 4, I'll wait for some other responses, although as of right now I kinda disagree, "breaking" in this context looks like it implies the same thing. But I'll wait before I give my final thoughts.

I'll put you in neutral, then.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I believe you might be overly focused on minor details, possibly. It's not necessary for us to have a particular statement that remains "transcendent." In fact,

In this context refers to the characters' recognition that they are part of a world where actions lead to consequences, creating a chain reaction of events. This phrase conveys the idea that in their universe, events are interconnected and driven by a cause-and-effect relationship. No action happens in isolation; every action they take has consequences that affect themselves and others.

However, the characters are asserting that even though they are bound by this cycle, they won't be passive victims of it. They refuse to be resigned to the idea that they are merely products of their circumstances. Instead, they believe that their emotions, determination, and choices can break free from this deterministic cycle. They are expressing their intent to transcend the limitations imposed by fate and circumstances and make their own mark on the world, regardless of the inevitable sequence of cause and effect.

The transcendence comes from the fact that the characters in the text are expressing their determination to transcend or break through the limitations imposed by the cycle of cause and effect. This is not just about understanding and navigating causal relationships, typically.

My stance:
I think you only focused on this part, while the context actually goes deeper than that. Therefore, this doesn't appear to be a measure of attack potency or any concrete ability, as some here mentioned.

I presume that the user who included acausality type 4 is conscious of their liberation from this system, yet I cannot discern any indication of this in the profile description.

Can we find any proof that they explicitly mentioned the results of the characters' attempts to surpass the confines of the cause-and-effect framework? If there is no evidence, I may lean to possibility acausality type 4, rather of removing it completely. Although, if they never success it, I think the removal is reasonable.

My two cents.

 

[Valeska24]

As a small note, "breaking through causality and fate" here does not refer to Simon's independence from causality. It directly refers to his breaking the barrier of causality where Nia is stuck and rescuing her. In other words, there is no independence by breaking the boundaries of causality, but only a feat in terms of damaging in a way that is equivalent to breaking down a wall.

So yeah, I definitely agree with OP's proposal

 

[ImmortalDread]

You don't need independence of cause and effect system for acausality type 4.

 

[Valeska24]

In this context refers to the characters' recognition that they are part of a world where actions lead to consequences, creating a chain reaction of events. This phrase conveys the idea that in their universe, events are interconnected and driven by a cause-and-effect relationship. No action happens in isolation; every action they take has consequences that affect themselves and others.

However, the characters are asserting that even though they are bound by this cycle, they won't be passive victims of it. They refuse to be resigned to the idea that they are merely products of their circumstances. Instead, they believe that their emotions, determination, and choices can break free from this deterministic cycle. They are expressing their intent to transcend the limitations imposed by fate and circumstances and make their own mark on the world, regardless of the inevitable sequence of cause and effect.

The transcendence comes from the fact that the characters in the text are expressing their determination to transcend or break through the limitations imposed by the cycle of cause and effect. This is not just about understanding and navigating causal relationships, typically.

The part that the OP is focusing on is not just "no transcendence" or "it was an attack that they broke through", I'm not sure myself if it was an attack success as well, at least not fundamentally. That's why more context is needed. And what we were basically saying was that this feat could be a "resistance" rather than a logic of working in a different causal system. At the end of the day there is a point where we separate Acausality type 4 from resistance causality and fate manipulations.

 

[Valeska24]

You don't need independence of cause and effect system for acausality type 4.

It doesn't directly need independence, yes. What I meant was an example. I don't see a point where what is indicated by those statements refers to working in a different causal system. It could just be a simple resistance.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It doesn't directly need independence, yes. What I meant was an example. I don't see a point where what is indicated by those statements refers to working in a different causal system. It could just be a simple resistance.

I believe it is improbable that your intention was to provide an illustrative instance, as your complete agreement appears to hinge upon this premise.

The part that the OP is focusing on is not just "no transcendence" or "it was an attack that they broke through", I'm not sure myself if it was an attack success as well, at least not fundamentally. That's why more context is needed. And what we were basically saying was that this feat could be a "resistance" rather than a logic of working in a different causal system. At the end of the day there is a point where we separate Acausality type 4 from causality and fate manipulations.

The entire focus of the OP, in fact, revolved around those two details. I am not attempting to contradict; I am merely stating what I am reading.

Regarding the statement "more context is needed," I believe it simply means that we need to know whether they succeeded in the end or not. Since the entire premise of the context is to surpass these restrictions, it's essential to determine if they managed to do so. Otherwise, I don't see any harm in considering the possibility of acausality type 4 or removal, although the story might become meaningless and boring if they indeed did not succeed. However, that's just my personal viewpoint.

In this context, resistance makes no sense, as the context itself provides more depth concerning their state of being bound by this cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it seems to be a resistance against the manipulation of fate or causality.

 

[Valeska24]

I believe it is improbable that your intention was to provide an illustrative instance, as your complete agreement appears to hinge upon this premise.

I didn't understand what you meant, I was just using "being independent of causality" as an example of having type 4 acausality (and it doesn't always have to be type 4. I was just giving an example and I apologize if I misunderstood) My main intention was that things that directly indicate type 4 in this case lack context.

The entire focus of the OP, in fact, revolved around those two details. I am not attempting to contradict; I am merely stating what I am reading.

Regarding the statement "more context is needed," I believe it simply means that we need to know whether they succeeded in the end or not. Since the entire premise of the context is to surpass these restrictions, it's essential to determine if they managed to do so. Otherwise, I don't see any harm in considering the possibility of acausality type 4 or removal, although the story might become meaningless and boring if they indeed did not succeed. However, that's just my personal viewpoint.

First of all, no. The OP was first proposing that this feat is not a transcendence and that it is not certain that it is otherwise a feat in the sense of working in a different system of causality.
Secondly, for the part about needing more context, I would say both that we need to know whether they were successful in the end, as you say, and that the mere statement "breaking causality" (in the context you describe) is still insufficient on its own to give type 4 directly. I don't see why it can't just be resistance. What already separates type 4 Acausality from resisting manipulations of causality and fate is that type 4 Acausality requires working in a different causal system in the first place. In this case I don't see anything that shows that. Maybe it's just a difference in our perspectives.

In this context, resistance makes no sense, as the context itself provides more depth concerning their state of being bound by this cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it seems to be a resistance against the manipulation of fate or causality.

Again I don't understand what you mean. You say that it is not make sense for it to be a resistance, but at the end of the sentence you say that it seems to be a resistance.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I didn't understand what you meant, I was just using "being independent of causality" as an example of having type 4 acausality (and it doesn't always have to be type 4. I was just giving an example and I apologize if I misunderstood) My main intention was that things that directly indicate type 4 in this case lack context.

I hope so.

 

[Larssx]

Seems nice, agreed.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Acausality (Types 2 & 4. Merged every version of himself upon integrating the Multiverse as a part of him. Stated to have broken through cause, effect and fate. It is said, that even when trapped, their feelings open the gate, and they will decide their own fate)

Agree with the downgrade. From what I’m getting, it sounds like they can willpower their way into “replicating” the benefits of type 4 acausality (they even have explicit feats of resisting fate manipulation), but type 4 should be an existential thing.

Disagree with the arguments for possible type 4 acausality; should be revised as resistance to causality manipulation and fate manipulation.

 

[AloseVQ]

.

Thank you for your input. Valeska24 has already said what I would say in generally, so I will not reply again and prolong the thread. So should I note you as neutral or disagree?


I would also like to point out that even if type 4 Acausality in Simon's "Post-Multiverse Labyrinth" key is not to be removed, we still need to remove the higher degree of type 4 in the "Post-Apotheosis" key. I don't know who added this, but using the same argument and the same scans, the type 4 that was already in the previous key was entered as higher degree of type 4 by using these scans again.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Thank you for your input. Valeska24 has already said what I would say in generally, so I will not reply again and prolong the thread. So should I note you as neutral or disagree?

Neutral since none here is the supporter of the verse and has answered my question

I would also like to point out that even if type 4 Acausality in Simon's "Post-Multiverse Labyrinth" key is not to be removed, we still need to remove the higher degree of type 4 in the "Post-Apotheosis" key. I don't know who added this, but using the same argument and the same scans, the type 4 that was already in the previous key was entered as higher degree of type 4 by using these scans again.

So the justification is simply the same but higher degree? I suppose it can be removed.

 

[AloseVQ]

Neutral since none here is the supporter of the verse and has answered my question

All right, noted.

So the justification is simply the same but higher degree? I suppose it can be removed.

Yes.

So I guess now we'll have to wait for the staff input.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Did you contact verse supporters? Since their input is also appreciated.

 

[AloseVQ]

Did you contact verse supporters? Since their input is also appreciated.

Well, no I didn't.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am neutral for now.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well, no I didn't.

Then you are required to, at least, to not get accusations that you had bad faith for doing a thread without any supporter's attention. Just a tip from me.

 

[Burkiqwe]

I am neutral for now.

Can you tag mods and supporters?

 

[AloseVQ]

I am neutral for now.

Noted. Can you also tag verse supporters and other staff members?

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah not sure how Simon resisting/breaking through cause and effect would grant type 4 since it doesn’t imply he functions on different laws than a normal being, agree with the downgrade.

 

[AloseVQ]

Then you are required to, at least, to not get accusations that you had bad faith for doing a thread without any supporter's attention. Just a tip from me.

I'm just a bit lazy lol. I have no bad intentions

 

[Georredannea15]

Make sense for me, Breaking something doesn't mean it's independent of it or that you're working under different causalities. I agree

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm just a bit lazy lol. I have no bad intentions

Never claimed this. I am just saying in case in the future, the supporters may get upset of it.

 

[Vietthai96]

i somehow always interpreting those contexts as hypebole, because it sound like generic cringe speeh from protagonist state they gonna break through fate to destroy the villain and choose their own destity...lol

 

[ImmortalDread]

Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.

It is far from “vagueness”, he was literally deep about it. None of you really read the imgur context?

 

[KLOL506]

I'm neutral. Plus my vote won't count anyway. Ask @Ultima_Reality, @DontTalkDT, @Executor_N0 and @Planck69 instead.

 

[FoxySonicMaster108]

I’d rather get some more people that know Gurren Lagann to give their thoughts.

Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.

I’ve seen Gurren Lagann and I’m pretty sure that they are successful.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Really? Then, I am against the removal of acausality type 4. People who are only focused on “breaking” rather reading the intention of the word in the original context needs to re-read it again.

 

[AloseVQ]

Really? Then, I am against the removal of acausality type 4.

Noted.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Where is fate manipulation and causality manipulation resistance coming from? It is a place, a cycle. It is the regular setting in our world. It is not some character who is doing this.

Anyone who is freed from it is "acausality type 5" in contextual sense (but VSBW dislike it, and wants more evidence for it because reasons), so it should be acausality type 4 for less-assumed interpretations.

 

[Vietthai96]

Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.

It is far from “vagueness”, he was literally deep about it. None of you really read the imgur context?

Nah, i just joking