Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

[RaveeCPN]

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?

I have already responded to this mindset;

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

So? A NEP character is lack of all existing and non-existent and is in no way connected to the plane of existence. But it still can be negate with higher dimenional power, AP or hax.

This transcendence of cause and effect is valid only for the plane in which it is located, because although all- cause effect types in a 4-dimensional plane and cause-effect types in a 5-dimensional plane are the same, in 5-D it operates on a higher plane.

If you transcend all cause-effect types of a 4-D plane, it does not mean you have transcended 5-D cause-effect planes.

These were already talked about in haxs like NEP and TD and it was a big NLF. I still have no idea why these are used as counter-arguments

 

[Georredannea15]

Ravee got banned. I think I will continue this Thread.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Alright

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @DarkGrath @Planck69

What do you think about this?

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about this?

just making the languge more explict about what qualifies I'm fine with. Though the fears that the wording change will lead to the power becoming to niche to ever work might be valid.

Ultimately speaking there does need to be a clear piece of evidence that states X is beyond any causality system in their cosmology rather than just a general Acasual statement.

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump, I hope a staff will look at this revision.

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[Reiner04]

No staff seems interested.

 

[Georredannea15]

No staff seems interested.

I'm afraid so. I think I opened it at the wrong time because it all came at the wrong time. If it continues like this for a while, I'll close this one and open a new one (of course, everything will be the same except for some minor changes in OP and text)

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @DarkGrath @Planck69

What do you think about this?

just making the languge more explict about what qualifies I'm fine with. Though the fears that the wording change will lead to the power becoming to niche to ever work might be valid.

Ultimately speaking there does need to be a clear piece of evidence that states X is beyond any causality system in their cosmology rather than just a general Acasual statement.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @Sir_Ovens @DarkGrath @Planck69

What do you think?

 

[Georredannea15]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @Sir_Ovens @DarkGrath @Planck69

What do you think?

Thanks Ant, you've come like a saviour

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

No problem.

As Ravee has been banned, what should we do here?

 

[Georredannea15]

As Ravee has been banned, what should we do here?

I've taken over the thread. I'm still waiting for staffs comments.

Btw what do you think about this thread?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I've taken over the thread. I'm still waiting for staffs comments.

Btw what do you think about this thread?

No opinion.

 

[Qawsedf234]

As Ravee has been banned, what should we do here?

Other people still agreed with the change. So the OP being banned or not wouldn't effect it being passed or anything.

Though if Georredanne wants to remake it or something I guess we can close it, But ultimately I don't see why we would.

 

[Georredannea15]

Other people still agreed with the change. So the OP being banned or not wouldn't effect it being passed or anything.

Though if Georredanne wants to remake it or something I guess we can close it, But ultimately I don't see why we would.

I've already stated that I've taken over this thread, and I personally don't think it should be closed and reopened. If you don't see a problem with it continuing, I guess it can still continue.

In conclusion, my arguments are more or less the same; the main idea is that for Type 5 Acausality it is necessary to prove that all types of cause and effect exist in the verse and to be in a transcends, non-interacting state of being.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

In conclusion, my arguments are more or less the same; the main idea is that for Type 5 Acausality it is necessary to prove that all types of cause and effect exist in the verse and to be in a transcends, non-interacting state of being.

In that case, I propose we merge this thread into https://vsbattles.com/threads/yeet-type-5-acausality-or-change-it-again.141846/.

 

[Georredannea15]

In that case, I propose we merge this thread into https://vsbattles.com/threads/yeet-type-5-acausality-or-change-it-again.141846/.

These are two completely different threads. Personally, I think this thread should continue from here because the two threads offer very different things.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

These are two completely different threads. Personally, I think this thread should continue from here because the two threads offer very different things.

This thread is proposing to add standards to clarify that we must prove all systems of cause and effect exist in a verse for type 5 acausality. ImmortalDread's thread is proposing that we either remove type 5 causality or redefine it because she argues that type 5 causality is so strict that it's nigh-unachievable, either of which would render this thread obsolete.

 

[Georredannea15]

This thread is proposing to add standards to clarify that we must prove all systems of cause and effect exist in a verse for type 5 acausality. ImmortalDread's thread is proposing that we either remove type 5 causality or redefine it because she argues that type 5 causality is so strict that it's nigh-unachievable, either of which would render this thread obsolete.

As I said, what Dread proposes only applies to the current standards, but has little to do with what I am proposing. The only thing they have in common is that there is a "non-interactable state" and Dread's proposal is to remove this requirement.

As I said, combining my threads and Dread's threads would not be healthy. It would be better to treat them differently, since they are two threads that make completely different points.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As I said, what Dread proposes only applies to the current standards, but has little to do with what I am proposing. The only thing they have in common is that there is a "non-interactable state" and Dread's proposal is to remove this requirement.

As I said, combining my threads and Dread's threads would not be healthy. It would be better to treat them differently, since they are two threads that make completely different points.

All you've done is restate yourself without addressing anything I said. Dread's thread has everything to do with what you're proposing because while you're trying to make type 5 causality require all possible cause and effect systems, Dread's arguing that this standard is impossible to philosophically prove and that we should thus note this on the page and clarify that only incomplete forms of causality transcendence can exist in fiction.

 

[Georredannea15]

All you've done is restate yourself without addressing anything I said. Dread's thread has everything to do with what you're proposing because while you're trying to make type 5 causality require all possible cause and effect systems, Dread's arguing that this standard is impossible to philosophically prove and that we should thus note this on the page and clarify that only incomplete forms of causality transcendence can exist in fiction.

Dread says that the "non-interactivity" feat, which only exists in the current Acausality standard, makes Acausality too difficult, so she wants to change or delete it. I argue a very different point.

It's also something that already exists philosophically. Buddhism and Hinduism are the most obvious examples of this. As I said, I'm still in favor of continuing here

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Dread says that the "non-interactivity" feat, which only exists in the current Acausality standard, makes Acausality too difficult, so she wants to change or delete it. I argue a very different point.

Read the whole thread before jumping to conclusions. This is what Dread is proposing we change the section to:

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.

Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond its feats. While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.

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

As one can clearly see, Dread's point is that it's impossible to prove being above all causality systems. Your points are conflicting points about the same thing, period.

It's also something that already exists philosophically. Buddhism and Hinduism are the most obvious examples of this. As I said, I'm still in favor of continuing here

Omnipotence is also something that already exists philosophically in the Abrahamic religions; that doesn't mean we tier it, and this is the same thing. I sincerely hope you're not planning on responding with another "I'm still in favor of continuing here" with no support because, frankly, it's getting repetitive and exausting.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@ImmortalDread I need your help with this argument.

 

[Georredannea15]

Read the whole thread before jumping to conclusions. This is what Dread is proposing we change the section to:

As one can clearly see, Dread's point is that it's impossible to prove being above all causality systems. Your points are conflicting points about the same thing, period.

This profile, buddhism and hinduism thoughts already refutes what she is said.( and more)

Omnipotence is also something that already exists philosophically in the Abrahamic religions; that doesn't mean we tier it, and this is the same thing. I sincerely hope you're not planning on responding with another "I'm still in favor of continuing here" with no support because, frankly, it's getting repetitive and exausting.

This has nothing to do with Acausality.

As I said, I will not combine this revision with Dread's revision, and I have no intention of doing so.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This profile, buddhism and hinduism thoughts already refutes what she is said.( and more)

No, it does not. The whole point of Dread's revision is that regardless of what individual works or mythologies state, it's impossible for anyone to prove themselves to be above every causality system possible. Pointing to one verse or even a few mythologies and saying they've "refuted" that is as meaningless as saying one verse having an "omnipotent" character refutes the idea of not tiering omnipotence.

This has nothing to do with Acausality.

It has everything to do with acausality. Just as nobody can prove themselves to be unambiguously omnipotent, nobody can prove themselves to unambiguously transcend all causality.

As I said, I will not combine this revision with Dread's revision, and I have no intention of doing so.

After I offered some eminently reasonable points about why Dread's revision will render yours obsolete and that it's a bad idea to have two conflicting revisions open at once, I have no intention of letting you dismiss me so casually.
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa
I believe that as this revision is trying to make acausality type 5 require proof of being above all causality systems, which ImmortalDread's revision for type 5 causality has deemed impossible, this thread should be closed. My conversation here has been unproductive.

 

[Georredannea15]

No, it does not. The whole point of Dread's revision is that regardless of what individual works or mythologies state, it's impossible for anyone to prove themselves to be above every causality system possible. Pointing to one verse or even a few mythologies and saying they've "refuted" that is as meaningless as saying one verse having an "omnipotent" character refutes the idea of not tiering omnipotence.

The aim is to prevent every verse from gaining this hax easily and to minimize NLF. And my point in putting this profile here is because Dread called it "impossible". If there is more than one profile and verse with this feature, it is not impossible to prove it.

It has everything to do with acausality. Just as nobody can prove themselves to be unambiguously omnipotent, nobody can prove themselves to unambiguously transcend all causality.

Depending on the context, a character can prove his or her omnipotency in verse or something else. The important thing here is "context". As long as you ignore this, we're not getting anywhere. Also, omnipotency and Acausality aren't even alike.

After I offered some eminently reasonable points about why Dread's revision will render yours obsolete and that it's a bad idea to have two conflicting revisions open at once, I have no intention of letting you dismiss me so casually.
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa
I believe that as this revision is trying to make acausality type 5 require proof of being above all causality systems, which ImmortalDread's revision for type 5 causality has deemed impossible, this thread should be closed. My conversation here has been unproductive.

If you're looking to close a revision on your own, good luck man. However, it will be evaluated in two revisions. If you have a problem, open a revision yourself. Especially when there is a staff that does not think it should be closed, I have no intention of closing it and it will never happen.

This revision will be closed after what should be done to Acausality Type 5 is decided.

Also, Dread's point is that it's impossible to prove that a character has transcended all causality systems in the verse( in the cosmology), and the "non-interaction" imperative further solidifies these standards. And it aims to change that or remove Type 5 Acausality. Totally different thinking from this revision

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The aim is to prevent every verse from gaining this hax easily and to minimize NLF. And my point in putting this profile here is because Dread called it "impossible". If there is more than one profile and verse with this feature, it is not impossible to prove it.

Depending on the context, a character can prove his or her omnipotency in verse or something else. The important thing here is "context". As long as you ignore this, we're not getting anywhere. Also, omnipotency and Acausality aren't even alike.

That's not what "impossible to prove" refers to in this context. Nobody is saying that you can't prove yourself to be omnipotent or above all the causality systems in your verse, just that you can't prove yourself to these things in general. How "alike" omnipotence and acausality are is irrelevant to this analogy.

If you're looking to close a revision on your own, good luck man. However, it will be evaluated in two revisions. If you have a problem, open a revision yourself. Especially when there is a staff that does not think it should be closed, I have no intention of closing it and it will never happen.

This revision will be closed after what should be done to Acausality Type 5 is decided.

Stop. Mocking. Me. Don't be so sure.

Also, Dread's point is that it's impossible to prove that a character has transcended all causality systems in the verse( in the cosmology), and the "non-interaction" imperative further solidifies these standards. And it aims to change that or remove Type 5 Acausality. Totally different thinking from this revision

You've now confused me so much I can't follow anymore.

 

[Georredannea15]

That's not what "impossible to prove" refers to in this context. Nobody is saying that you can't prove yourself to be omnipotent or above all the causality systems in your verse, just that you can't prove yourself to these things in general. How "alike" omnipotence and acausality are is irrelevant to this analogy.

The context here doesn't mention "in general" all dimensional planes/layers anyway. Qawsedf already mentioned above that you don't even need it for this requirement of Type 5 Acausality. A statement of the existence of all cause-effect relationships at your level and a non-interactive character that goes beyond that.

In short, depending on your plane in the verse, that is, if you are transcending all possible cause-effect relationships on a 5-dimensional plane, this will only apply to the 5th dimension, not 6-D or higher

Stop. Mocking. Me. Don't be so sure.

Then you can open another thread yourself for this. But, you cannot say that the threads opened by anyone should be "closed" without any results. It's that simple.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The context here doesn't mention "in general" all dimensional planes/layers anyway. Qawsedf already mentioned above that you don't even need it for this requirement of Type 5 Acausality. A statement of the existence of all cause-effect relationships at your level and a non-interactive character that goes beyond that.

In short, depending on your plane in the verse, that is, if you are transcending all possible cause-effect relationships on a 5-dimensional plane, this will only apply to the 5th dimension, not 6-D or higher

Then your suggestion needs a much clearer rewrite.