Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

[RaveeCPN]

Hello,

I'm opening this revision to make the difference between Acausality Type 4 and Type 5 more clear and understandable. The reason for this is that I have seen many people saying that "just being out of cause and effect and being unable to interact" is enough for Type 5- Which is not

In total, we have 2 main problems and I would like to address them

Problems;

1. First of all, let me start by explaining the difference between Type 4 Acausality and Type 5, because I have seen here on the wiki that many people misunderstand these two types.

Type 4 Acausality in itself is being unaffected by specific one or more causality systems. But these characters can still be affected by some cause and effect natures.

Type 5 Acausality is to be unaffected by all possible cause and effect natures/types and to come to a state of being that cannot be interacted with. These characters, unlike Type 4, are not affected by any cause and effect and causality.

2. The reason why I want to elaborate more on Type 5 Acausality is that it is one of the most confusing and therefore wankable haxes, and this is because it is not explained in much detail on the page.

For example, a statement like "Character X has a state of existence outside of the universe of cause and effect that cannot be interacted with." might at first glance seem like a Type 5, but it's not. The main reason for this is that the universe does not know or is not stated in the verse that it contains all possible types of causality systems

In short, if such a statement has no statement or context that the universe contains all cause and effects (which means all causality systems that exist and possible), it would be Type 4. Also, one of the most confusing things here is that having "a state of being that cannot be interacted with" is thought to be Type 5 when combined with the statement "outside of cause and effect", but as I just said, in order to gain Type 5 Acausality with these statements, it must be stated that "This universe has all possible cause-effect relationships/systems that exist and are possible."

Therefore, my suggestion would be to explain the requirements of Type 5 Acausality and the difference between Type 4 and Type 5 in more detail and more clearly on the page.

Note:

*If you are not a staff member, please remember that this is a staff thread. So if you comment without permission you will be reported to RVRT without delay.

Agree:

Disagree:

Neutral:

 

[Qawsedf234]

What's you current proposed rewrite?

 

[RaveeCPN]

What's you current proposed rewrite?

I didn't think to change a very big part of it or all of it, so I basically thought of something like that;

Characters with this kind of Transcendence of Causality exist outside of all existing, possible, conceivable cause and effect relationships. Characters of this nature require proof that they cannot be changed by any influence based on any causal system, meaning that it is impossible to interact with them in a normal way.

But I am also open to ideas to make this example better. I'm not very good at deciding these things ngl

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I got permission to post from Qawsedf here and this will be a one-time comment and I will not reply further

I disagree with requiring all existing possible and conceivable cause-and-effect relationships. if we fully follow that standard of logic that means only 1-A and Above are capable of acquiring it as a verse and the story can be limited to just a regular universe but since the existence of a higher reality and higher levels of causality systems beyond traditional or regular ones or other would invalidate it no matter how much a character qualifies for this type. This pretty much makes this part of the Ability page

"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."

pretty much irrelevant as now we somehow now require it to be unaffected by all causal systems.

This pretty much is similar to going back to old Concept Manipulation Type 1 and other abilities that arbitrarily need 1-A or above just to qualify for such ability. it doesn't really reflect what the ability is compared to Type 4 nor makes it something notable to be differentiated from Type 4 aside from being required to reach the level of 1-A for to qualify we follow said requirement

 

[Georredannea15]

I got permission to post from Qawsedf here and this will be a one-time comment and I will not reply further

I disagree with requiring all existing possible and conceivable cause-and-effect relationships. if we fully follow that standard of logic that means only 1-A and Above are capable of acquiring it as a verse and the story can be limited to just a regular universe but since the existence of a higher reality and higher levels of causality systems beyond traditional or regular ones or other would invalidate it no matter how much a character qualifies for this type. This pretty much makes this part of the Ability page

pretty much irrelevant as now we somehow now require it to be unaffected by all causal systems.

This pretty much is similar to going back to old Concept Manipulation Type 1 and other abilities that arbitrarily need 1-A or above just to qualify for such ability. it doesn't really reflect what the ability is compared to Type 4 nor makes it something notable to be differentiated from Type 4 aside from being required to reach the level of 1-A for to qualify we follow said requirement

I would like to state that I have obtained permission from Qawsedf to comment here.

First of all, I would like to point out that the most obvious difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is that Type 5 is basically independent of all cause-effect relationships/types. But Type 4 is independent of the particular cause-effect system/systems.

But Acausality page does not elaborate on this difference between Type 4 and Type 5 and the most important point for Type 5. This naturally causes great misunderstandings for Type 5 Causality and as a result opens the way for possible wanks.

This thread's purpose is to correct misunderstandings, elaborate the page and prevent possible wanks.

 

[RaveeCPN]

I disagree with requiring all existing possible and conceivable cause-and-effect relationships. if we fully follow that standard of logic that means only 1-A and Above are capable of acquiring it as a verse and the story can be limited to just a regular universe but since the existence of a higher reality and higher levels of causality systems beyond traditional or regular ones or other would invalidate it no matter how much a character qualifies for this type. This pretty much makes this part of the Ability page

"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."

First of all, thank you for your input

Secondly, no. A character does not need to be 1-A for Type 5. By "conceivable" we mean causal systems under the same dimensional plane. So if a character transcends all (existing, possible and conceivable) causal systems on the 5D plane, this gives 5D Acausality type 5.

Also thank you for quoting that part. If a character gains type 5 via being beyond all causal systems mentioned in the verse and become untouchable/uninteractable, then this type would contradict type 5's explanation that "Characters of this nature require proof that they cannot be changed by any influence based on a causal system". Because this character would still be able to be influenced by certain causal systems. So it would only be NLF to claim that they are beyond other causal systems just because of these statements.

 

[The_Emperor4th]

So I got permission to post/speak here from Lonkitt, and I also been told that this is just a single post only.

Honestly, I find it redundant to adding what the OP is suggesting, specifically that you need to have such as evidence like “you need to exist outside all possible, conceivable of causality system”. And what do you mean by “specific one causality system? It sounds like it is more difficult and more impossible for characters to get it, compared to the previous type 5 criteria.

Like, you just need to demonstrate that you have to operate on another causality system or independently causality system in the verse, which is self-explanatory Type 4. There are also cases that a character that are beyond or exist outside of the causality system in their verse, and without any further explanations on that, we just give them Type 4, but in a higher degree of it.

The difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is, Type 5 needs to show that once the character has been stated that beyond/transcend/exist outside of causality system, you need to have proper elaborations or evidence that you are untouchable or interacting with this type is impossible due to their causality system reasons itself (not because other factors such as NEP, transduality, etc).

Rakudai characters are a great example of this, having the criteria for type 5, but they only classified as type 4 (higher degree) due to they still can be interacted with other regular characters.

Are you suggesting that in order to get Type 5, one need to demonstrate/show that there are more than 1 causality systems in their verse (like 2, 3? or infinite amounts of possible causality system?). And you need to exist outside all of the systems to get the type 5?

 

[RaveeCPN]

Honestly, I find it redundant to adding what the OP is suggesting, specifically that you need to have such as evidence like “you need to exist outside all possible, conceivable of causality system”. And what do you mean by “specific one causality system? It sounds like it is more difficult and more impossible for characters to get it, compared to the previous type 5 criteria.

When I say "specific causal system/s" I mean countable/limited number of causal systems, because Type 5 is to be completely independent of all of the causality and therefore resistant to any kind of causal interaction. But the general idea on the wiki seems to be that just being independent of the systems mentioned in the verse and not being able to be interacted with is enough. Which is not the way it is supposed to be. The reason is that even if a character is independent of the causalities mentioned in the verse, it does not make that character completely beyond causality unless it is independent of all possible/conceivable causality.

Like, you just need to demonstrate that you have to operate on another causality system or independently causality system in the verse, which is self-explanatory Type 4. There are also cases that a character that are beyond or exist outside of the causality system in their verse, and without any further explanations on that, we just give them Type 4, but in a higher degree of it.

If the causal systems mentioned in the verse are countable/limited in number, then being independent of them is only type 4 or higher degree of it, yes. Because there is still the possibility that there are causalities that can affect them. It would be NLF to claim that it directly transcends all causality just because it is superior/independent of the causality in the verse. This is what I am offering.

The difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is, Type 5 needs to show that once the character has been stated that beyond/transcend/exist outside of causality system, you need to have proper elaborations or evidence that you are untouchable or interacting with this type is impossible due to their causality system reasons itself (not because other factors such as NEP, transduality, etc).

There is a difference between transcending a causality system and transcending all causality. In the definition of Type 5, all causality (all causes and effects) refers to cause and effect in all systems, not just cause and effect within a particular system.

The entire causality contains within it all causal systems. And causal systems contains causes and effects. If you transcend/independence only one or more countable systems (i.e. "all" causes and effects within countable/limited amount of systems) etc. it will only give you type 4. Type 5 requires much more than that. If we call only being independent of a certain number of systems and being uninteractable Type 5, this would contradict the logic of "uninteractable". Because there will still be different causes and effects in different systems that can affect you.

Are you suggesting that in order to get Type 5, one need to demonstrate/show that there are more than 1 causality systems in their verse (like 2, 3? or infinite amounts of possible causality system?). And you need to exist outside all of the systems to get the type 5?

What I am suggesting is more like this;

Acausality (Type 5. The nature of the Ultimate Void is different from any conceivable cosmos and is a changeless totality[3])

If type 5 is not going to be like this, it will be no different from type 4 or higher degree of it

 

[Georredannea15]

What's you current proposed rewrite?

Can you tag some staff here?

 

[deonment]

Ultima gave me permission to post here

1. First of all, let me start by explaining the difference between Type 4 Acausality and Type 5, because I have seen here on the wiki that many people misunderstand these two types.

Type 4 Acausality in itself is being unaffected by specific one or more causality systems. But these characters can still be affected by some cause and effect natures.

Type 5 Acausality is to be unaffected by all possible cause and effect natures/types and to come to a state of being that cannot be interacted with. These characters, unlike Type 4, are not affected by any cause and effect and causality.

I would like to state that I have obtained permission from Qawsedf to comment here.

First of all, I would like to point out that the most obvious difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is that Type 5 is basically independent of all cause-effect relationships/types. But Type 4 is independent of the particular cause-effect system/systems.

First of all, this is just, not true
Type 4 acausality is based upon the character or thing in question functioning within a different system of causality while type 5 is based upon not operating within a system of causality altogether and due to this being entirely unaffected by things that still function within a system, these two things also implies that a system of cause and effect would not include the sum total of all causal relationships within itself, or wouldn't govern such a thing, which is extraordinarily inane.

But I am also open to ideas to make this example better. I'm not very good at deciding these things ngl

This is horrid on such a fundamental level I am struggling to explain why on such a fundamental scale this is wrong, but I shall try anyways
This by nature is already included within a system of cause and effect, that is why it is a system.

Also thank you for quoting that part. If a character gains type 5 via being beyond all causal systems mentioned in the verse and become untouchable/uninteractable, then this type would contradict type 5's explanation that "Characters of this nature require proof that they cannot be changed by any influence based on a causal system". Because this character would still be able to be influenced by certain causal systems. So it would only be NLF to claim that they are beyond other causal systems just because of these statements.

I, wha, how
If something cannot even begin to interface with you in the first place because you exist outside of causality as a whole, please explain to me how they still are changeable by something that still exists within a system of causality when that statement implies nothing of that sort occurring

If type 5 is not going to be like this, it will be no different from type 4 or higher degree of it

While I am not going to touch the rest of this post to conserve what remains of my tolerance of this, this is horridly and objectively false and is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what type 4 is, type 4 is not based upon transcending causality or something or the sort, it is based upon existing and functioning within a different system of causality altogether.

This entire thread just seems to be based upon the fact that the OP does not understand the fact that type 4 isn't transcending causality but instead functions on an alien system of causality and then trying to use that misunderstanding to literally make it impossible for anything under 1-A or a verse which speaks Buddhist texts or something comparable to get acausality type 5.

 

[RaveeCPN]

First of all, this is just, not true
Type 4 acausality is based upon the character or thing in question functioning within a different system of causality while type 5 is based upon not operating within a system of causality altogether and due to this being entirely unaffected by things that still function within a system, these two things also implies that a system of cause and effect would not include the sum total of all causal relationships within itself, or wouldn't govern such a thing, which is extraordinarily inane.

Type 5 does not and should not rely on not operating within "a system of causality". This is because it contradicts "immutability". And this is similar to the case of "working in a different causal system" as in type 4. So even if you don't operate in a causal system, there will still be other causal systems that can affect you. The main point of Type 5 is immunity based on not being affected by any causality. So type 5 must be directly independent of "all" causality. Otherwise it is no different from type 4.

This is horrid on such a fundamental level I am struggling to explain why on such a fundamental scale this is wrong, but I shall try anyways
This by nature is already included within a system of cause and effect, that is why it is a system.

I am aware of how bad the writing there is lol

I, wha, how
If something cannot even begin to interface with you in the first place because you exist outside of causality as a whole, please explain to me how they still are changeable by something that still exists within a system of causality when that statement implies nothing of that sort occurring

So you will be independent of the cause and effect in that system that fulfills this situation, but there will still be different and irregular cause and effect in another system that can fulfill this situation as well. And for Type 5 you have to prove that you are independent even of such a situation. At least that's what I'm presenting rn.

While I am not going to touch the rest of this post to conserve what remains of my tolerance of this, this is horridly and objectively false and is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of what type 4 is, type 4 is not based upon transcending causality or something or the sort, it is based upon existing and functioning within a different system of causality altogether.

Actually, nobody here has misunderstood Type 4. I'm just presenting that being beyond one causality system should be the same as working in a different causal system.

This entire thread just seems to be based upon the fact that the OP does not understand the fact that type 4 isn't transcending causality but instead functions on an alien system of causality and then trying to use that misunderstanding to literally make it impossible for anything under 1-A or a verse which speaks Buddhist texts or something comparable to get acausality type 5.

GreatJedi said the same thing, so I think I'll just quote my response to him;

Secondly, no. A character does not need to be 1-A for Type 5. By "conceivable" we mean causal systems under the same dimensional plane. So if a character transcends all (existing, possible and conceivable) causal systems on the 5D plane, this gives 5D Acausality type 5.

So I am only talking about all conceivable causal systems that exist and possible on a dimensional plane, not those that exist on higher planes that are qualitatively superior to the plane mentioned in the statements in the series. So there is nothing in what I have presented that says you have to be at least 1-A to have Type 5 Acausality.

But thanks for your opinion anyway

 

[Georredannea15]

Ultima gave me permission to post here


First of all, this is just, not true
Type 4 acausality is based upon the character or thing in question functioning within a different system of causality while type 5 is based upon not operating within a system of causality altogether and due to this being entirely unaffected by things that still function within a system, these two things also implies that a system of cause and effect would not include the sum total of all causal relationships within itself, or wouldn't govern such a thing, which is extraordinarily inane.

I've talked to Qawsedf about this before, and he said it's mandatory. If you don't assume that way, you're ignoring the difference between Type 4 and Type 5.

For Type 5 Acausality, it's no different than Type 4 if you only expect to be outside cause and effect and not be able to interact. If "all types/natures of cause and effect" are not stated in the verse, or if there is no similar context, it would be Type 4.

The statement "outside of all causality" is by itself too vague, maybe there are only a limited number of cause-effect relationships within that causality? We can't know that, so if we assume this statement alone "independent of all possible regular and irregular types of cause and effect", it would be an NLF.

The purpose of this revision is to make the page more detailed and better explain the difference to avoid misunderstandings.

Type 4 Acausality = Having an irregular cause-effect relationship indepented a limited regular cause-effect relationship.

Type 5 Causality = Being outside of all possible regular and irregular cause-effect relationships/types.

 

[Qawsedf234]

As a note, you don't need to be 1-A for even this version of Type 5. Our current justification even mentions it:

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.

A Low 1-C Type 5 is only immune up to Low 1-C. Azathoth is still assumed to have the ability to effect them for example.

 

[The_Emperor4th]

When I say "specific causal system/s" I mean countable/limited number of causal systems, because Type 5 is to be completely independent of all of the causality and therefore resistant to any kind of causal interaction.

I don't think that fictions mostly portrayed or show that there have countable/limited number of causality system in their verse. Generally speaking, they treat 1 causality systems as a whole universal system, if the certain character demonstrated that they beyond/independent/transcend/exist outside of it, with the further explanations and concrete evidence about how untouchable or how hard for this character to get to interact due to their causality natures, we should just give them Type 5 according to our standard.

But the general idea on the wiki seems to be that just being independent of the systems mentioned in the verse and not being able to be interacted with is enough. Which is not the way it is supposed to be. The reason is that even if a character is independent of the causalities mentioned in the verse, it does not make that character completely beyond causality unless it is independent of all possible/conceivable causality.

Which is good that the standards of the acausality are actually based on general idea, so most of the verse could have the fair treatment to get the abilities. If the characters has been show that they exist outside of the causality system with the proof that they are untouchable, uneffected and impossible to interact with this user due to their causality nature reason that has been mentioned in their verse then, it should be a clear cut that they are Type 5.

I don’t see any problems if we give type 5 for the verse that only portrays the character that independent of the causality system, which is giving the result that other characters are impossible/unable to interact with them due to they're independent of the system itself. Which is what the Type 5 page said.

If the causal systems mentioned in the verse are countable/limited in number, then being independent of them is only type 4 or higher degree of it, yes. Because there is still the possibility that there are causalities that can affect them. It would be NLF to claim that it directly transcends all causality just because it is superior/independent of the causality in the verse. This is what I am offering.

Higher degree can be obtained for the character that doesn’t elaborate or didn’t have any evidence to prove that they are impossible to get interact with other characters in their verse, whether they transcend the causality system, exist outside or other similar things.

Heck, even without mentioning countable/limited number of the causality stuff, they still can get that rating tbf. Which is already reducing the NLF part. Rakudai characters are the example of this.

There is a difference between transcending a causality system and transcending all causality. In the definition of Type 5, all causality (all causes and effects) refers to cause and effect in all systems, not just cause and effect within a particular system.

The entire causality contains within it all causal systems. And causal systems contains causes and effects. If you transcend/independence only one or more countable systems (i.e. "all" causes and effects within countable/limited amount of systems) etc. it will only give you type 4. Type 5 requires much more than that. If we call only being independent of a certain number of systems and being uninteractable Type 5, this would contradict the logic of "uninteractable". Because there will still be different causes and effects in different systems that can affect you.

I struggled to see the difference between transcending the causality system and transcending all the causality systems actually by default, it could be still having a same result imo. Unless the verse has a proper explanations, evidence and enough context regarding the benefits and shortcomings between these two things, and has a huge difference result if there is a character that transcends all of them, rather than just transcending only a specific system.

The same way between if a character that transcending the space-time and a character that transcending all space-time, even though we have a standard that they could be Low 1-C, but still we didn’t straight up give them Low 1-C without any further evidences to support the claim. Context, proof and explanations are matters.

What I am suggesting is more like this;
If type 5 is not going to be like this, it will be no different from type 4 or higher degree of it

Not all of the verse causality system has the same evidence and explanation as the CM verse...

With this logic, only CM characters are eligible to get Type 5...

 

[RaveeCPN]

I don't think that fictions mostly portrayed or show that there have countable/limited number of causality system in their verse. Generally speaking, they treat 1 causality systems as a whole universal system, if the certain character demonstrated that they beyond/independent/transcend/exist outside of it, with the further explanations and concrete evidence about how untouchable or how hard for this character to get to interact due to their causality natures, we should just give them Type 5 according to our standard.

And that doesn't make sense. Because Type 5 must be devoid of any causality-based interactions. Someone with Type 5 should not be affected by irregular causes and effects of all causal systems, no matter how irregular they are. Such interactions should not be enough to change it. But what you're saying is that it would still be open to being changed by any other irregular system that might still exist. And that leads to a contradiction.

In this case, they are untouchable only because no other causal system is exist in the verse, or because the causes and effects of what exists cannot affect it.

For example, if there are 5 different causal systems in a verse and character A is beyond/independent/transcendent of them and cannot be influenced or changed by them, then it is not correct for it to be type 5 because it cannot be equated in the crossverse with a character that is independent of 6 or more different causal systems and in a state that cannot be interacted with just as character A is. This is because there is no evidence that character A can exist without being interacted with by 6 or more systems that could exist, just like the other character- To summarize this example simply, the causality that character A is beyond/independent of has only 5 different causal systems, while we do not know whether character A would still be unaffected/beyond/independent if there were 6 or more different irregular systems in that causality

Which is good that the standards of the acausality are actually based on general idea, so most of the verse could have the fair treatment to get the abilities. If the characters has been show that they exist outside of the causality system with the proof that they are untouchable, uneffected and impossible to interact with this user due to their causality nature reason that has been mentioned in their verse then, it should be a clear cut that they are Type 5.

I don’t see any problems if we give type 5 for the verse that only portrays the character that independent of the causality system, which is giving the result that other characters are impossible/unable to interact with them due to they're independent of the system itself. Which is what the Type 5 page said.

As I wrote above. This is not a fair comparison. If there is no information about how irregular or regular systems are contained in the causality that character A transcends etc., it should only be type 4. Because this would lead to unfairness in crossverse comparisons and it would be NLF to call it type 5.

Higher degree can be obtained for the character that doesn’t elaborate or didn’t have any evidence to prove that they are impossible to get interact with other characters in their verse, whether they transcend the causality system, exist outside or other similar things.

Heck, even without mentioning countable/limited number of the causality stuff, they still can get that rating tbf. Which is already reducing the NLF part. Rakudai characters are the example of this.

I'm arguing that this shouldn't be possible rn.

Also, higher degree of type 4 doesn't only have to be obtained by not having another type 4 interacting with you. Working in a more irregular causal system than the one the character with baseline type 4 works in can also make you a higher degree of type 4. So it shouldn't be type 5 unless the verse details the number of causal systems etc. or something like that.

I struggled to see the difference between transcending the causality system and transcending all the causality systems actually by default, it could be still having a same result imo. Unless the verse has a proper explanations, evidence and enough context regarding the benefits and shortcomings between these two things, and has a huge difference result if there is a character that transcends all of them, rather than just transcending only a specific system.

The same way between if a character that transcending the space-time and a character that transcending all space-time, even though we have a standard that they could be Low 1-C, but still we didn’t straight up give them Low 1-C without any further evidences to support the claim. Context, proof and explanations are matters.

What I'm saying is that transcending causality [I'm talking about causality(as a whole) that includes causal system] alone should not be enough for type 5. We don't know how many causal systems are contained within the causality mentioned in the verse, or any details about these causal systems. We cannot call it type 5 on this statement alone. That would be NLF

Not all of the verse causality system has the same evidence and explanation as the CM verse...

With this logic, only CM characters are eligible to get Type 5...

I didn't say that they should have the same. That was just an example.

And if I may say one little thing. Yes, I'm in favor of making type 5 a very difficult thing to have. This shouldn't be an easy hax that you can buy as if you buy it at the market.

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't think that fictions mostly portrayed or show that there have countable/limited number of causality system in their verse. Generally speaking, they treat 1 causality systems as a whole universal system, if the certain character demonstrated that they beyond/independent/transcend/exist outside of it, with the further explanations and concrete evidence about how untouchable or how hard for this character to get to interact due to their causality natures, we should just give them Type 5 according to our standard.

But the causality or cause-effect system of a universal system may not include all regular and irregular cause-effect systems, it would be an NLF to assume without any wording or context. That's how we count it in Transduality

For example; When a statement say "character X has transcended all the duality systems of the world", we do not directly give a type 2 Transduality. This is because we do not know that the world contains all binary systems and dualism within itself. Therefore, additional context and statement are required.

Rimuru already is a good example for this.

In short, in the causality/cause-effect relationship of a universal system, we must know that all cause-effect types/natures exist within the causality of that universal system.

Which is good that the standards of the acausality are actually based on general idea, so most of the verse could have the fair treatment to get the abilities. If the characters has been show that they exist outside of the causality system with the proof that they are untouchable, uneffected and impossible to interact with this user due to their causality nature reason that has been mentioned in their verse then, it should be a clear cut that they are Type 5.

Some Type 4 Acausalities may work like a typical Type 5, what distinguishes them from Type 5 is that they only have an irregular cause-effect relationship outside of certain cause-effect systems.

I don’t see any problems if we give type 5 for the verse that only portrays the character that independent of the causality system, which is giving the result that other characters are impossible/unable to interact with them due to they're independent of the system itself. Which is what the Type 5 page said.

The OP's purpose is to further elaborate the requirements of Type 5 Acausality and explain the difference between Type 4 and Type 5.

Because the current page explanations cause misunderstandings.

 

[Planck69]

This seems rather redundant. Like, so far nothing has been said that isn't either already addressed or a fundamental misunderstanding of our current Acausality standards.

 

[Georredannea15]

This seems rather redundant. Like, so far nothing has been said that isn't either already addressed or a fundamental misunderstanding of our current Acausality standards.

Then there is no difference between Type 4 and Type 5 Acausality, I will write more comments in a moment.

 

[Planck69]

Type 4 is abiding by a different system of causality than the standard one of the setting or a specific part of it.

Type 5 is being unbound by causality systems in your setting altogether, to the point that interaction by bound entities is impossible.

That's it.

 

[RaveeCPN]

Type 4 is abiding by a different system of causality than the standard one of the setting or a specific part of it.

It doesn't change the main topic, so this part is not that important. But I'll leave a quote below in case it's important for later

Quote from the description of Type 4;

Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality.

Type 5 is being unbound by causality systems in your setting altogether, to the point that interaction by bound entities is impossible.

And I'm presenting that this should not be like that.

Quote from the description of Type 5;

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.

So you have to be independent of any influence "related to any system of causality", whether regular or irregular. If you are only independent of 1 or 2 regular or irregular systems in the plane you are exist and you are not going to be affected only by "them", this should not be enough for type 5. Because what we call causality is not limited to 1 or 2 regular or irregular systems. It must be proved that all regular and irregular systems are included in the causality in which the character is independent etc. so that it can be fully claimed to be lacking any causality-based effect. According to what you are saying, this would be NLF, since it is unclear whether this character would be affected by the causes and effects of any different causal system that might exist.

 

[Georredannea15]

Type 4 is abiding by a different system of causality than the standard one of the setting or a specific part of it.

Type 5 is being unbound by causality systems in your setting altogether, to the point that interaction by bound entities is impossible.

That's it.

The problem is that Type 4 Acausality is to have an irregular cause-effect/causality relationship beyond a regular cause-effect/causality system.

But Type 5 Acausality is to be outside all types of cause and effect, regular and irregular, and in a non-interactable state.

If you count being in a non-interactable state outside of causality without extra context as Type 5, it is not much different from Type 4. Because we don't know that there are all types of cause and effect in this causality. Just like in Transduality Type 2,

For example; When a statement say "character X has transcended all the binary systems of the world", we do not directly give a type 2 Transduality. This is because we do not know that the world contains all duality systems and dualism within itself. Therefore, additional context and statement are required.

 

[Planck69]

The problem is that Type 4 Acausality is to have an irregular cause-effect/causality relationship beyond a regular cause-effect/causality system.

But Type 5 Acausality is to be outside all types of cause and effect, regular and irregular, and in a non-interactable state.

If you count being in a non-interactable state outside of causality without extra context as Type 5, it is not much different from Type 4. Because we don't know that there are all types of cause and effect in this causality. Just like in Transduality Type 2,

1. Transduality and Acausality are two entirely different powers with occasional overlap. A comparison between them as a n argument is nonsensical.

2. So what if it's "not much different"? Setting aside the fact that being outside cause and effect to the point of immutability and just being on a different path of causality aren't remotely the same, the difference being there currently is enough.

3. Even if I agreed, nothing would change about how we treat Acausality. That's why I say this is a nothing burger. It fundamentally misunderstands our current treatment of the power.

 

[RaveeCPN]

1. Transduality and Acausality are two entirely different powers with occasional overlap. A comparison between them as a n argument is nonsensical.

We are not treating them as the same or similar things. We are just arguing that the logic of application to the characters should be the same.

Transduality Type 2 requires transcending/being independent from "all" duality systems. Not just a certain number of them. And I say that it should be the same for Acausality Type 5, because if not, then it would be a mystery whether characters with Type 5 can be interactable with other causality systems that might exist (because what you're saying is that it's enough to be independent from the systems that exist in the verse and just not be able to be interacted with by them, but for some reason it contradicts something else that's written on the page right now), and it would be NLF to claim that.

2. So what if it's "not much different"? Setting aside the fact that being outside cause and effect to the point of immutability and just being on a different path of causality aren't remotely the same, the difference being there currently is enough.

Right now, according to what you say, there is no difference between them. They're exactly the same thing. You act as if they are two different things, but in fact both of them only lead to type 4 according to your logic.

There is a difference between transcending/being independent from the 3-5 causal systems in the verse and not being affected by "only those systems" and transcending/being independent from "all of the causality (causality, which includes all causal systems that exist, possible and conceivable)" and not being able to be interacted with by "any regular or irregular causal system"- And that's the way it should be

I also have already explained this in my reply to you above, so I will just quote it;

Quote from the description of Type 5;

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.

So you have to be independent of any influence "related to any system of causality", whether regular or irregular. If you are only independent of 1 or 2 regular or irregular systems in the plane you are exist and you are not going to be affected only by "them", this should not be enough for type 5. Because what we call causality is not limited to 1 or 2 regular or irregular systems. It must be proved that all regular and irregular systems are included in the causality in which the character is independent etc. so that it can be fully claimed to be lacking any causality-based effect. According to what you are saying, this would be NLF, since it is unclear whether this character would be affected by the causes and effects of any different causal system that might exist.

3. Even if I agreed, nothing would change about how we treat Acausality. That's why I say this is a nothing burger. It fundamentally misunderstands our current treatment of the power.

The purpose of this thread is to change the definition already on the page

 

[Georredannea15]

1. Transduality and Acausality are two entirely different powers with occasional overlap. A comparison between them as a n argument is nonsensical.

It's just one example.

Just as in Transduality we do not directly assume that a character transcends all duality systems and dualism just because they transcend all duality systems in a universe, this should also apply to Acausality, since the most obvious difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is similar to the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Transduality.

I have given this example for better understanding.

2. So what if it's "not much different"? Setting aside the fact that being outside cause and effect to the point of immutability and just being on a different path of causality aren't remotely the same, the difference being there currently is enough.

"What if". That's the problem. If we say that a causality contains all types of cause and effect in a universe without extra context and statement, it is just an NLF.

3. Even if I agreed, nothing would change about how we treat Acausality. That's why I say this is a nothing burger. It fundamentally misunderstands our current treatment of the power.

Then you can think of this revision as a change for Type 5 Acausality.

 

[RaveeCPN]

Bump

 

[The_Emperor4th]

And that doesn't make sense. Because Type 5 must be devoid of any causality-based interactions. Someone with Type 5 should not be affected by irregular causes and effects of all causal systems, no matter how irregular they are. Such interactions should not be enough to change it. But what you're saying is that it would still be open to being changed by any other irregular system that might still exist. And that leads to a contradiction.

In this case, they are untouchable only because no other causal system is exist in the verse, or because the causes and effects of what exists cannot affect it.

It actually makes sense if you’re not trying to nitpick the part that actually doesn’t even matter and unnecessary. They are untouchable, uneffected and impossible to interact with due to the fact that they exist outside the causality system in their freaking verse. Full stop and simply, that’s all. And the quote on type 5 stated, “unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality” doesn’t necessary mean you need to have “countable/limited number of causal systems”.

I do not get what you’re mean by saying they still “can be open to being changed by any other irregular system that might still exist”, while the fact that some verses could treat one specific causality system much better than having 1000 other different causality systems and still, can obtained the abilities without mentioned it in the first place.

For example, if there are 5 different causal systems in a verse and character A is beyond/independent/transcendent of them and cannot be influenced or changed by them, then it is not correct for it to be type 5 because it cannot be equated in the crossverse with a character that is independent of 6 or more different causal systems and in a state that cannot be interacted with just as character A is. This is because there is no evidence that character A can exist without being interacted with by 6 or more systems that could exist, just like the other character- To summarize this example simply, the causality that character A is beyond/independent of has only 5 different causal systems, while we do not know whether character A would still be unaffected/beyond/independent if there were 6 or more different irregular systems in that causality

As I wrote above. This is not a fair comparison. If there is no information about how irregular or regular systems are contained in the causality that character A transcends etc., it should only be type 4. Because this would lead to unfairness in crossverse comparisons and it would be NLF to call it type 5.

If you’re gonna arguing in crossverse/Vs match like: “X has 1000 different causality system, so X can effect/interact Y who has acausality Type 5 because X has 999 better number of causality systems than Y” then, no it is not. I don’t see why this will be such an unfair comparison. I will argue in that match that X is the one that falls to NLF territory, having more quantity doesn’t equal to having more quality. You still need a feat to interact with the type 5 because they are literally impossible to get to interact.

It doesn’t really matter whether you are beyond all the causality systems or whatever in your verse, if you don’t have a feat to interact or effects to the Type 5 user then, you can’t even do a single shit to beat them, doesn’t even can touch them.

I'm arguing that this shouldn't be possible rn.

Also, higher degree of type 4 doesn't only have to be obtained by not having another type 4 interacting with you. Working in a more irregular causal system than the one the character with baseline type 4 works in can also make you a higher degree of type 4. So it shouldn't be type 5 unless the verse details the number of causal systems etc. or something like that.

What I'm saying is that transcending causality [I'm talking about causality(as a whole) that includes causal system] alone should not be enough for type 5. We don't know how many causal systems are contained within the causality mentioned in the verse, or any details about these causal systems. We cannot call it type 5 on this statement alone. That would be NLF

Working on more irregular causality system is higher type 4, yes but you missed the part of why higher degree are exist which is didn’t have evidence or some statements that they cannot be interacted or effected due to their acausality natures. And this also includes to the verse that have more than one causality system.

Have you ever thought for a while that they still can obtain the abilities without mentioning 23726283817 different causality system? One could argue or have evidence that with just beyond of specific causality (with the good evidence of cannot be interact by any beings), it could lead and get the result of being unable to changed by any effect that relies on that one specific system of causality, without mentioning any number or causality system.

This is absolutely ridiculous and unfair if we forced the verse to explicitly need an evidence like “you need to show others different number of causality”.

I didn't say that they should have the same. That was just an example.

And if I may say one little thing. Yes, I'm in favor of making type 5 a very difficult thing to have. This shouldn't be an easy hax that you can buy as if you buy it at the market.

I really don't think there should be very strict rules when it comes to something like this, especially it can be case-by-case for some fictions that can apply something like this in their verse, and plus making it harder doesn’t always a good choice to reduce the issue of “it’s a wankable hax”. All hax in this wiki in general are NLF and wankable imo.

We have this thread recently made by @Theglassman12, you can request a removal if you see any profile that doesn’t have enough information about type 5, rather than changing the standard to the point that only specific verse that includes philosophy, theology, mathematical or whatever shit can obtained without considering that there are countless other verses that can obtained the hax through their verse explanations.

But the causality or cause-effect system of a universal system may not include all regular and irregular cause-effect systems, it would be an NLF to assume without any wording or context. That's how we count it in Transduality

For example; When a statement say "character X has transcended all the duality systems of the world", we do not directly give a type 2 Transduality. This is because we do not know that the world contains all binary systems and dualism within itself. Therefore, additional context and statement are required.

Rimuru already is a good example for this.

In short, in the causality/cause-effect relationship of a universal system, we must know that all cause-effect types/natures exist within the causality of that universal system.

That’s a false equivalence and fallacy of division, like Planck said, those two abilities are have their own page and it’s nowhere close enough for them to having the same application.

We know what duality is, unlike Acausality, we can logically know for ourselves and determine which one is duality or not, and plus duality can also appear in various forms: fire and water, order and chaos, light and dark, good and evil, yin yang, etc.

Can you list to me what others causality system that can work like duality? Having a various number of different types, and can be applied to the fiction much like duality? Because Transduality is the abilities that have many examples, can appear in any shape or form and thus why the standard application for the abilities are working like that.

Some Type 4 Acausalities may work like a typical Type 5, what distinguishes them from Type 5 is that they only have an irregular cause-effect relationship outside of certain cause-effect systems.

Yeah, sure but it seems that you forgot the most important part that makes the two different is:

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.

 

[RaveeCPN]

Meh, I hate long posts

Also we will keep writing and writing the same things we talked about above- For me, what you're saying is still NLF. So I'm not really going to bother writing a reply. Georr will reply if he wants to, otherwise I'll wait for more staff input

Plus, if I have to say something about the thread opened by Glass, it's not worth writing anything there. That's why I created this one

 

[Georredannea15]

That’s a false equivalence and fallacy of division, like Planck said, those two abilities are have their own page and it’s nowhere close enough for them to having the same application.

Like i said, it's just an example for better understanding. They are different from each other, but they logics are almost the same.

We know what duality is, unlike Acausality, we can logically know for ourselves and determine which one is duality or not, and plus duality can also appear in various forms: fire and water, order and chaos, light and dark, good and evil, yin yang, etc.

Likewise, cause-effect types can appear in various ways with different results. A cause-effect system can have more than one effect. That's why there are 2 different planes of cause and effect, regular and irregular.

Can you list to me what others causality system that can work like duality? Having a various number of different types, and can be applied to the fiction much like duality? Because Transduality is the abilities that have many examples, can appear in any shape or form and thus why the standard application for the abilities are working like that.

Man, you have to understand the logic here. I'm not saying duality=causality, just that the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 TD and Aca4 and Aca5 have the same logic. The important thing here is not just read, can understant. I hope you understand me. It's just an example.

Yeah, sure but it seems that you forgot the most important part that makes the two different is:

But, some Type 4 Acausality may also be non-interactive but are still Type 4 Acausality. The most important salient differences are the following;

Type 4 Acausality is to be in an irregular cause and effect plane, beyond a regular cause and effect.

However, Type 5 Acausality is to be transcendent of all types/natures of cause and effect, regular and irregular. That's why, no one can interact with you.

Edit: I may not be here for a few days. So I leave it to rave.

 

[The_Emperor4th]

Point out which one the part that logic between the two abilities that has almost the same and can be used appropriately in application for qualification for acausality Georr, just because they almost the same, doesn't mean we can directly use it as the standard without judging if it is appropriate or not.

The fact that you’re literally ignoring that Duality has a lot of example which we ourselves, can see the difference between both the abilities. I’m still waiting for you or @RaveeCPN to list the example of other different number of causality other than regular and irregular system.

If we keep it in a circular arguments then, I’m not interested to argue more in this thread. Let the staff decided.

Edit: I may not be able to reply again if there is a new argument.

 

[Georredannea15]

Point out which one the part that logic between the two abilities that has almost the same and can be used appropriately in application for qualification for acausality Georr, just because they almost the same, doesn't mean we can directly use it as the standard without judging if it is appropriate or not.

The fact that you’re literally ignoring that Duality has a lot of example which we ourselves, can see the difference between both the abilities. I’m still waiting for you or @RaveeCPN to list the example of other different number of causality other than regular and irregular system.

If we keep it in a circular arguments then, I’m not interested to argue more in this thread. Let the staff decided.

Edit: I may not be able to reply again if there is a new argument.

If I give a simple example, if you hit your opponent, he will be hurt and injured as a result. This is a case of regular cause and effect. But if you hit a character with irregular cause and effect, the result will hurt you, not your opponent. This is one of the cases of irregular cause and effect, but different consequences of this can also be in a different cause and effect relationship. Of course, these can be in different results, such as this one for example

 

[Planck69]

@Maverick_Zero_X @Emirp sumitpo @KingTempest @Celestial_Pegasus @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Theglassman12 @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @SamanPatou @Sir_Ovens

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[RaveeCPN]

B-U-M-P

 

[ImmortalDread]

Type 4 Acausality in itself is being unaffected by specific one or more causality systems. But these characters can still be affected by some cause and effect natures.

It did not explicitly mention the word "specific." Instead, it conveyed that you are functioning within an alternative/different causality system as opposed to the conventional one.

Type 5 Acausality is to be unaffected by all possible cause and effect natures/types and to come to a state of being that cannot be interacted with. These characters, unlike Type 4, are not affected by any cause and effect and causality.

It never explicitly stated the inclusion of all conceivable cause-and-effect relationships. Similarly, it merely indicated that you exist outside the realm of "cause-and-effect," making you inaccessible or unengageable within this framework.

For example, a statement like "Character X has a state of existence outside of the universe of cause and effect that cannot be interacted with." might at first glance seem like a Type 5, but it's not. The main reason for this is that the universe does not know or is not stated in the verse that it contains all possible types of causality systems

It is not advisable to proceed in such a manner. We do not intend to establish a rule without limits. The boundaries of our universe are defined by dimensions and the multiverse. The proposition you present implies a desire for a state of existence that transcends everything, where higher-dimensional beings would have no influence. However, it is important to note that Acausality type 5 remains subject to dimensional limitations.

In short, if such a statement has no statement or context that the universe contains all cause and effects (which means all causality systems that exist and possible), it would be Type 4.

This statement lacks coherence and logical reasoning. It can be likened to a proposition where tier 0 ought to encompass all mathematics that are “likely” unknown, otherwise it cannot be classified as tier 0. Your approach not only adds unnecessary complexity, but also presents an illogical assertion.

Also, one of the most confusing things here is that having "a state of being that cannot be interacted with" is thought to be Type 5 when combined with the statement "outside of cause and effect", but as I just said, in order to gain Type 5 Acausality with these statements, it must be stated that "This universe has all possible cause-effect relationships/systems that exist and are possible."

It really should not. Refer to my previous statements.

In general, you are not making it comprehensible, but rather establishing your own set of rules or criteria for it.

Permission given by @Abstractions

 

[RaveeCPN]

Dread, do you have permission from any of the staff or not?

If not, move away from my thread

 

[Georredannea15]

It is not advisable to proceed in such a manner. We do not intend to establish a rule without limits. The boundaries of our universe are defined by dimensions and the multiverse. The proposition you present implies a desire for a state of existence that transcends everything, where higher-dimensional beings would have no influence. However, it is important to note that Acausality type 5 remains subject to dimensional limitations.

Qawsedf has already explained this above. For other arguments, whatever I wrote before is valid for these arguments.

 

[Georredannea15]

If not, move away from my thread

This was a little heavy.

 

[RaveeCPN]

This was a little heavy.

No, its wasn't

 

[ImmortalDread]

Qawsedf has already explained this above. For other arguments, whatever I wrote before is valid for these arguments.

Then the title of the thread is misleading. You are guys creating a new guideline - acausality type 5 is not bounded by dimensionality or by anything.

Anyone who is 9-A with acausality type 5 will stomp anyone else regardless of the gap of tier and statistics because "Well, you can't interact with me, I am above every possible cause and effect".

Does it make sense for you? Hell, I am asking myself what is the difference to the concept of omnipotence at this point.

Literally, you guys are nowhere aware how many problems we are getting if we implement this logic.

There is no “elaborating the misunderstanding" but adding misleading new criteria. Literally, even within the difference between both, you added your own interpretation rather the guideline itself.

 

[RaveeCPN]

But if I still need to answer;

It did not explicitly mention the word "specific." Instead, it conveyed that you are functioning within an alternative/different causality system as opposed to the conventional one.

Fair. By specific I mean only the causal systems that exist (with a certain number) in the verses.

It never explicitly stated the inclusion of all conceivable cause-and-effect relationships. Similarly, it merely indicated that you exist outside the realm of "cause-and-effect," making you inaccessible or unengageable within this framework.

If it is as you say, then it does not protect you against "cause and effect" based interactions. Because you're not presenting anything that says that you will not be affected by more irregular systems that can still exists. You are only in a situation where you are not affected by the systems that exist in the verse.

It is not advisable to proceed in such a manner. We do not intend to establish a rule without limits. The boundaries of our universe are defined by dimensions and the multiverse. The proposition you present implies a desire for a state of existence that transcends everything, where higher-dimensional beings would have no influence. However, it is important to note that Acausality type 5 remains subject to dimensional limitations.

What I said has nothing to do with this. I have already responded to that before and QAWSEDF has responded that as well;

As a note, you don't need to be 1-A for even this version of Type 5. Our current justification even mentions it:
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.
A Low 1-C Type 5 is only immune up to Low 1-C. Azathoth is still assumed to have the ability to effect them for example.

Secondly, no. A character does not need to be 1-A for Type 5. By "conceivable" we mean causal systems under the same dimensional plane. So if a character transcends all (existing, possible and conceivable) causal systems on the 5D plane, this gives 5D Acausality type 5.

-

This statement lacks coherence and logical reasoning. It can be likened to a proposition where tier 0 ought to encompass all mathematics that are “likely” unknown, otherwise it cannot be classified as tier 0. Your approach not only adds unnecessary complexity, but also presents an illogical assertion.

Again, nothing to do with what I said. Dude, WTF?

The reason for covering all causality is that Type 5 should be resistant to causality-based interactions. This has nothing to do with Tier 0 or math

 

[ImmortalDread]

Fair. By specific I mean only the causal systems that exist (with a certain number) in the verses.

Specific and “operating under different causality system than regular" is two big significant distinction. You failed to elaborate the misunderstanding, except you misunderstood yourself. But I will move on, however, even @Georredannea15 used the same tone argument in my DMs, so it does not sound like you were simply vague on this.

If it is as you say, then it does not protect you against "cause and effect" based interactions. Because you're not presenting anything that says that you will not be affected by more irregular systems that can still exists. You are only in a situation where you are not affected by the systems that exist in the verse.

Yes it does, it actually protects any NLF statement/debate as well. According to this, 9-A with acausality type 5 can literally stomp tier 0 characters regardless of dimensionality, statistics and abilities.

Does this sound logical to you?

Again, nothing to do with what I said. Dude, WTF?

The reason for covering all causality is that Type 5 should be resistant to causality-based interactions. This has nothing to do with Tier 0 or math

Re-read my statement. I said as in example.

I won't argue or comment further. Qawasd has his own interpretation, does not mean they are within the contextual framework of the rules. I listed the issues if this is being added, this thread is misleading and gives new criteria instead of elaborating misconceptions.