Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality

[Georredannea15]

Because we have no reason to consider them different until evidence is provided.

Instead of such an assumption, I would recommend a healthier and clearer use of language and proceeding with precise context and evidence. It would be best to play it safe and close the gaps.

And also as I said, unfortunately, out of context, 2 Type 5 Acausal beings on the same plane are considered equal.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't really see a reason to do that. I think it's good to consider two type 5 acausal beings that are acausal in respect to a construct of the same size to be considered equal.

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't really see a reason to do that. I think it's good to consider two type 5 acausal beings that are acausal in respect to a construct of the same size to be considered equal.

That's a problem.

Type 5 Acausality provided by a character that transcends all possible causality systems and Type 5 Acausality provided by characters that transcend only a simple causality system are currently assumed on the wiki to be equal on the same plane.

This would be an NLF, and we cannot equate a simple causality to all possible causality types. But by equating these two Type 5 beings, we "assume" they are equal

 

[Agnaa]

Because the claim of "transcends all possible causal systems" is an NLF that we should ignore.

 

[Georredannea15]

Because the claim of "transcends all possible causal systems" is an NLF that we should ignore.

I don't know why you would call the proof of all types of causality systems exists on a plane an NLF., because this means that every action has its own causal system.(regular and irregular)

This is one of the contexts that some characters with Type 5 Acausality currently have.

It's also worth mentioning that it would be an NLF to assume that a character transcends a simple causality system is the same as one that transcends more than one or all causality systems.

 

[Agnaa]

If a character has substantive proof of being able to transcend multiple causal systems, they would be treated as having a higher level of acausality.

 

[Georredannea15]

If a character has substantive proof of being able to transcend multiple causal systems, they would be treated as having a higher level of acausality.

The problem is that the wiki doesn't accept it that way. If two Type 5 Acausal beings are on the same plane, they are assumed to be equal regardless of context. Whether they transcends 1 causality system or if they more than one.

 

[Agnaa]

That doesn't sound like it's true, why do you say that?

I don't think there's any abilities where we reject there being above-baseline versions.

 

[Georredannea15]

That doesn't sound like it's true, why do you say that?

I don't think there's any abilities where we reject there being above-baseline versions.

Can you give an example of a character with a Type 5 Acausality that is above baseline or higher degree of Type 5 Acausality? Because it's... doesn't make sense. And I've never seen it before.

I don't know why you would call the proof of all types of causality systems exists on a plane an NLF., because this means that every action has its own causal system.(regular and irregular)

This is one of the contexts that some characters with Type 5 Acausality currently have.

I am still of this opinion. Also there are characters who already have this context and are assume equated with other Type 5 Acausality beings.

 

[Agnaa]

Can you give an example of a character with a Type 5 Acausality that is above baseline or higher degree of Type 5 Acausality?

I can't give you an example of a character with any type of Acausality. I don't actually read any verses with this nonsense.

Because it's... doesn't make sense.

You're the one who argued for there being different degrees, why are you now saying it doesn't make sense?

I don't know why you would call the proof of all types of causality systems exists on a plane an NLF.,

Because it requires being above things which are not demonstrated within the series.

because this means that every action has its own causal system.(regular and irregular)

I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Georredannea15]

I can't give you an example of a character with any type of Acausality. I don't actually read any verses with this nonsense.

You're the one who argued for there being different degrees, why are you now saying it doesn't make sense?

I... never defended that. All I'm saying is that some Type 5 beings transcend only one causal system, while some transcend all causal systems and these are assumed equal on the wiki and that's a NLF.

I suggest that transcending a single causal system will not be sufficient for Type 5, all causality systems must be transcended. Also this is not NLF because there are characters with Type 5 Acausality with this context

Because type 5 Acausality = not being affected by any causal action(causality system) and transcending them all.

But transcending a simple causality system does not mean transcending other causal systems and the actions that depend on them.

Also, in this message you quoted, I mentioned one of the mistakes of the wiki, so Type 5 will not happen unless the existence of all types is proven to be in the verse.

Because it requires being above things which are not demonstrated within the series.

Here is what I was talking about. In the verse, "if the existence of all cause-effect types is not explained or proven by context, it should not be sufficient for Type 5 to transcends all the cause-effect system in the verse.

In order for this to be type 5, it should be explained that the verse contains all possible cause-effect systems and a character must be transcends all of them. There must be proof that this verse contain all possible cause and effect.

In short, we will not assume directly without this context and statements.

 

[Agnaa]

I... never defended that. All I'm saying is that some Type 5 beings transcend only one causal system, while some transcend all causal systems and these are assumed equal on the wiki and that's a NLF.

That's not what NLF means.

I suggest that transcending a single causal system will not be sufficient for Type 5, all causality systems must be transcended. Also this is not NLF because there are characters with Type 5 Acausality with this context

Because type 5 Acausality = not being affected by any causal action(causality system) and transcending them all.

But transcending a simple causality system does not mean transcending other causal systems and the actions that depend on them.

Here is what I was talking about. In the verse, "if the existence of all cause-effect types is not explained or proven by context, it should not be sufficient for Type 5 to transcends all the cause-effect system in the verse.

In order for this to be type 5, it should be explained that the verse contains all possible cause-effect systems and a character must be transcends all of them. There must be proof that this verse contain all possible cause and effect.

In short, we will not assume directly without this context and statements.

I already argued against this in my earlier posts. You are not bringing up anything new.

 

[Georredannea15]

I already argued against this in my earlier posts. You are not bringing up anything new.

But I don't go beyond what is stated in the verse. I prevent characters that are not specified more in the their verse from being "equalized" with characters that are stated more in their own verse. In short, I argue that more context and statement should be introduced from the verse.

Because the wiki currently accepts it as such.

That's why, all Type 5 Acausalities that do not have this context should be removed.

 

[Agnaa]

You haven't demonstrated that they are already being equalized. I asked for an example of that happening, and you gave none.

And that equalization can be fixed by just... letting "above baseline acausality type 5" exist. That wouldn't even need the wording on any pages to be changed.

 

[Georredannea15]

You haven't demonstrated that they are already being equalized. I asked for an example of that happening, and you gave none.

So you're the one arguing that "then it will have the layers". That's why I asked you for proof or profile because it's your responsibility to prove it.

And that equalization can be fixed by just... letting "above baseline acausality type 5" exist. That wouldn't even need the wording on any pages to be changed.

All Type 5 beings are now considered equivalent on the same plane. I asked you for any examples of Type 5 Acausality with above baseline or layer but this is not available because there is no such character and the wiki does not assume so. This is not even written on the current page.

 

[Agnaa]

So you're the one arguing that "then it will have the layers". That's why I asked you for proof or profile because it's your responsibility to prove it.

• You: "Characters with acausality that should logically be stronger have been treated as the same."
• Me: "That makes no sense, can you show me an example of that happening?"
• You: "No, you have to give an example of them being treated differently."

That's not how the burden of proof works.

This is not even written on the current page.

No pages write that above baseline things can exist, because all abilities allow above baseline things to exist by default.

 

[Georredannea15]

• You: "Characters with acausality that should logically be stronger have been treated as the same."
• Me: "That makes no sense, can you show me an example of that happening?"
• You: "No, you have to give an example of them being treated differently."

That's not how the burden of proof works.

That's not exactly how it happened.

- Me: "All Type 5 Acausalities are assumed to be equal on the same plane out of context."

- You: "This is ridiculous, such characters must be above baseline"

- Me: "Can you give an example of Acausality Type 5 that is higher degree or above baseline? Because I've never seen it in any profile"

- You: "I don't know, I haven't looked into these matters much"

Average was something like that.

No pages write that above baseline things can exist, because all abilities allow above baseline things to exist by default.

So I asked you a profile for this.

I can give an example of a profile that does not have any layer of type 5 Acausality, although all causality relationships are proven and transcendent. Here it is.

 

[Agnaa]

That's not exactly how it happened.

- Me: "All Type 5 Acausalities are assumed to be equal on the same plane out of context."

- You: "This is ridiculous, such characters must be above baseline"

- Me: "Can you give an example of Acausality Type 5 that is higher degree or above baseline? Because I've never seen it in any profile"

- You: "I don't know, I haven't looked into these matters much"

Average was something like that.

You're the one making the claim that such characters are assumed to be equal.

Prove it.

I can give an example of a profile that does not have any layer of type 5 Acausality, although all causality relationships are proven and transcendent. Here it is.

As I said, "all causality" is an NLF that shouldn't be taken seriously. So that sounds fine.

 

[Georredannea15]

You're the one making the claim that such characters are assumed to be equal.

Prove it.

I left the link below.

As I said, "all causality" is an NLF that shouldn't be taken seriously. So that sounds fine.

You still don't say why. Why do you still call NLF something that is clearly proven in context and statement in the verse?

In this context it would be NLF to assume this as it is.

Because we equate a verse with simple causality with a verse that contain all causality relationships.

And from this point on, I think we should wait for the other staffs instead of discussing the issue further because our views are still more or less the same and have not changed (If you won't add anything new, of course)

 

[Agnaa]

You still don't say why. Why do you still call NLF something that is clearly proven in context and statement in the verse?

I already have.

To elaborate, just because a 2-A verse says that something is "above all causality", I think it's NLF to take that to mean that it's above tier 0 notions of causality.

And so, we should only say that such claims extend to what was demonstrated in-verse.

And so, it's not a more notable statement than "above causality in the series".

 

[Georredannea15]

I already have.

To elaborate, just because a 2-A verse says that something is "above all causality", I think it's NLF to take that to mean that it's above tier 0 notions of causality.

Uhhh... this again. Look, even at the very beginning of my arguments, I've commented over and over that "it will only go as far as the cosmology shown in the verse, nothing more". If "all cause-effect types" are in 5-D cosmology only, this only works in 5-D, nothing more.

In short, you should not have such a doubt about it, it will only work on the plane of existence in the verse.

Qawsedf touched on this and said that even for this use of Acausality Type 5, you don't need to have higher levels or all dimensional planes.

The profile I quoted you above is one of the best examples of this.

And so, we should only say that such claims extend to what was demonstrated in-verse.

And so, it's not a more notable statement than "above causality in the series".

Like I said, if 2-A happens in cosmology, this Type 5(OP's arguments) still only works in 4-D and limited to 4-D.

The only difference is that existence of all possible types of cause and effect must be proof within this 2-A multiverse (only on its own plane, of course).

For example, X ,Y and all possible cause-effect relationships must be proven to exist in that plane, and there is no need for higher dimensions for this. Because any kind of causality will be limited only to the cosmology shown in the verse.

And yes, this is the 5th or 6th conversion to the "all dimensional planes" discussion.

 

[Elizhaa]

On the cosmology point, the page already stated it is limited to evidence shown or feats, so I don't really think it is needed; heck, acausality type 5 used to be tier 1-A and up and it got limited to the character's dimensional level or plane of existence or the verse's depending on the evidence, years ago:
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 such that one is completely unbounded by and independent from cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.

The other wording seems too restrictive and is basically a no limit fallacy (NLF) like others have stated.

 

[Georredannea15]

On the cosmology point, the page already stated it is limited to evidence shown or feats, so I don't really think it is needed; heck, acausality type 5 used to be tier 1-A and up and it got limited to the character's dimensional level or plane of existence or the verse's depending on the evidence, years ago:
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 such that one is completely unbounded by and independent from cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.

The other wording seems too restrictive and is basically a no limit fallacy (NLF) like others have stated.

As I said, it will still work in the same plane(it is still limited to proof shown or feats). It will not go beyond what is shown in the series.

The only difference is the context or phrase in the verse that "all causal types exist" in cosmology. Otherwise, we assume (on the same plane) that a character that transcends a simple causal system is equal to characters that transcend all causal systems. (And that would be wrong)

That's why, OP presenting is that beings that transcends all possible causality systems/relationships should not be equated with beings that transcends only a simple causality, making it a requirement for Type 5.

And as I said, even if this happens, it is only limited to the plane in which it shown in the verse. It won't go any further.

If it's in 2-A, it only works in 4-D. The only difference is that the causality system in this 2-A multiverse is not simple causality, a statement or context is required that all types of cause and effect exist in this multiverse. Otherwise, transcends a simple causality system does not mean that you are independent of all causal action/ all cause and effect types, and it is not much different from Type 4.

 

[Agnaa]

Uhhh... this again. Look, even at the very beginning of my arguments, I've commented over and over that "it will only go as far as the cosmology shown in the verse, nothing more". If "all cause-effect types" are in 5-D cosmology only, this only works in 5-D, nothing more.

In short, you should not have such a doubt about it, it will only work on the plane of existence in the verse.

Then the statement that they'd "transcend all causal systems" would be false, and should be ignored. There would be causal systems that they don't transcend.

The only difference is that existence of all possible types of cause and effect must be proof within this 2-A multiverse (only on its own plane, of course).

That literally cannot happen. It is entirely impossible.

"Transcends all causal systems except for the causal systems it doesn't transcend" is nonsense that we shouldn't bother with.

 

[Georredannea15]

Then the statement that they'd "transcend all causal systems" would be false, and should be ignored. There would be causal systems that they don't transcend.

That literally cannot happen. It is entirely impossible.

"Transcends all causal systems except for the causal systems it doesn't transcend" is nonsense that we shouldn't bother with.

Only on their plane will the existence of all possible systems of cause and effect be proved and transcended.

And this is never, ever impossible.

For example, causal system X exists in every plane, but it only works in the plane in which it exists. To explain better,

The X causal system exists in 4-D, 5-D, 6-D and higher layers. However, the Type 5 Acausality working in 4-D transcends only the 4-D "X" system and all other causalities of 4-D, but of course not the other higher layers. (This is also for Y, Z and all other types of cause and effect).

If we call the "cause-effect relation X" that enables the act of running to take place, this X exists in all dimensional planes, the act of running is in every dimensional plane with "X" system. But a 4-D character can at best transcend 4-D causality systems with 4-D "X" system, not any more (and also the systems on which other actions depend, such as Y, Z and other in the 4-D.)

In short, all possible causalities can exist in a single layer. It only works depending on the layer.

 

[Agnaa]

It seems wrong to treat causal systems as something which can apply to any plane, especially considering how temporal dimensions inherently make things higher-dimensional. I wouldn't be surprised if some weird causal system actually required 3 temporal dimensions, and as such, couldn't apply to a reality with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions.

And to make a more general claim, even if they could, we generally don't take claims of covering "all" of something seriously, unless that "all" is rigorously restricted and well-defined in-verse, which isn't the case here.

So I don't think your suggestion should go through.

 

[Georredannea15]

It seems wrong to treat causal systems as something which can apply to any plane, especially considering how temporal dimensions inherently make things higher-dimensional. I wouldn't be surprised if some weird causal system actually required 3 temporal dimensions, and as such, couldn't apply to a reality with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions.

But every action proceeds in a time frame, with cause and effect.

Therefore, the all possible causal systems of the assumed Low 2-C universe will be 4-D. I don't think there would be a problem with that.

And to make a more general claim, even if they could, we generally don't take claims of covering "all" of something seriously, unless that "all" is rigorously restricted and well-defined in-verse, which isn't the case here.

Of course, everything must be taken in context. And I think that "the existence of all cause and effect relationships" in the verse should be proven by context and statements. And of course it will not go beyond the plane known to exist in this verse.

As I said before, there are currently characters with Type 5 Acausality in this context. I guess I quoted one of them above as an example.

So I don't think your suggestion should go through.

That hurts man. I thought I could convince you

And the worst thing is that despite my repeated explanations, people still say that "to transcend all types of cause and effect is to transcend causality in all dimensional planes".

 

[Agnaa]

Even if you do that, it's still not well defined. I don't think we should bother with vague NLF-y statements like that, and I think we should only concern ourselves with statements that are particular about what they're referring to.

If it says they're "above all cause and effect relationships that exist", we'll rate that related to which cause and effect relationships are shown to exist. If this is just one kind, then it'd be baseline Acausality Type 5. If it's two kinds, then it'd be above baseline, and equivalent to another verse which shows them being above those two kinds of cause and effect relationships.

I don't care about just limiting it to that realm, since it doesn't actually help with the problem of the verse not doing any elaboration itself.

 

[Georredannea15]

Even if you do that, it's still not well defined. I don't think we should bother with vague NLF-y statements like that, and I think we should only concern ourselves with statements that are particular about what they're referring to.

If it says they're "above all cause and effect relationships that exist", we'll rate that related to which cause and effect relationships are shown to exist. If this is just one kind, then it'd be baseline Acausality Type 5. If it's two kinds, then it'd be above baseline, and equivalent to another verse which shows them being above those two kinds of cause and effect relationships.

I don't care about just limiting it to that realm, since it doesn't actually help with the problem of the verse not doing any elaboration itself.

Then how do we solve this problem? Because the wiki currently treats type 5 beings that transcend a simple cause and effect system and beings that transcend multiple or even all cause and effect systems as equal on the same plane, without any layers.

Therefore, in order to solve this problem, I say "the existence of all cause-effect types should be explained in the verse". Of course we will only assume for the plane found.

 

[Agnaa]

Because the wiki currently treats type 5 beings that transcend a simple cause and effect system and beings that transcend multiple or even all cause and effect systems as equal on the same plane, without any layers.

You have not demonstrated this.

I asked for an example of that happening, and all you said was "Well there's this character who's stated to transcend all causal systems...." which doesn't actually establish that multiple causal systems are shown within the setting, nor does it show that, if their series does establish that, that such a character is treated the same.

Then how do we solve this problem?

We just tell whichever dumbass said "You cannot get above baseline Acausality Type 5" that you can.

There is literally no other ability on the site that works this way. No change needs to be made other than telling whichever idiot claimed that Acausality Type 5 is an exception (despite that not being written anywhere), that they're wrong!

 

[Georredannea15]

You have not demonstrated this.

I asked for an example of that happening, and all you said was "Well there's this character who's stated to transcend all causal systems...." which doesn't actually establish that multiple causal systems are shown within the setting, nor does it show that, if their series does establish that, that such a character is treated the same.

I actually proved it. Because even though the character I quoted has transcended all types of cause and effect, his profile still shows baseline type 5 Acausality. And as I said, I haven't seen layered Type 5 Acausality in any profile.

 

[Agnaa]

Most layered abilities aren't written as such on profiles. The lack of such an indication of a profile doesn't mean it's not a thing.

 

[Georredannea15]

Most layered abilities aren't written as such on profiles. The lack of such an indication of a profile doesn't mean it's not a thing.

But it is expressed in Acausality. So whenever I see a layered Type 4, the profile says "higher degree". But in Type 5 I have never seen or heard layered type 5

 

[Agnaa]

That's something you'd have to take up with each individual page creator.

We have no policy preventing there being higher degrees of Acausality Type 5.

 

[Georredannea15]

That's something you'd have to take up with each individual page creator.

We have no policy preventing there being higher degrees of Acausality Type 5.

I'll wait for the other staffs for this. Because I heard this "layered type 5" first from you

 

[DarkGrath]

I'll wait for the other staffs for this. Because I heard this "layered type 5" first from you

"Layered Type 5 Acausality" is just a natural consequence of the way the ability is defined, like with any other layered ability. We don't assume that someone with Type 5 Acausality has that ability extended to every conceivable higher layer of reality, because we can't assume that - it's impossible to prove in any meaningful way. We are firm on avoiding NLFs, and this is just one manifestation of that. This means that some characters can have Type 5 Acausality that extends to higher layers of reality than other characters with Type 5 Acausality. Ergo, some people have Type 5 Acausality that functions on a higher layer than other people's Type 5 Acausality. That is what a "layered" ability is.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'll wait for the other staffs for this. Because I heard this "layered type 5" first from you

I strongly agree with everything Agnaa has expressed here.

 

[Georredannea15]

"Layered Type 5 Acausality" is just a natural consequence of the way the ability is defined, like with any other layered ability. We don't assume that someone with Type 5 Acausality has that ability extended to every conceivable higher layer of reality, because we can't assume that - it's impossible to prove in any meaningful way. We are firm on avoiding NLFs, and this is just one manifestation of that. This means that some characters can have Type 5 Acausality that extends to higher layers of reality than other characters with Type 5 Acausality. Ergo, some people have Type 5 Acausality that functions on a higher layer than other people's Type 5 Acausality. That is what a "layered" ability is.

I'm not talking about higher planes here or causalities of higher realities. I'm talking about the same dimensional plane. Because what the OP proposes is that all types of cause and effect still exist on the same plane and only working on that plane, as far as it is shown in the verse. Not higher realities. (I've been explaining this since the beginning of Thread)

Because Agnaa says that the layered type 5 acausality will be in the same reality layer, not in the higher realities. And I've never come across anything like that.

This is the reason why there is no NLF, because the "all higher layers and realities, planes" you mentioned do not apply to all types of cause and effect. In short, you won't need all the higher planes for this

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I'm not talking about higher planes here or causalities of higher realities. I'm talking about the same dimensional plane. Because what the OP proposes is that all types of cause and effect still exist on the same plane and only working on that plane, as far as it is shown in the verse. Not higher realities. (I've been explaining this since the beginning of Thread)

Because Agnaa says that the layered type 5 acausality will be in the same reality layer, not in the higher realities. And I've never come across anything like that.

This is the reason why there is no NLF, because the "all higher layers and realities, planes" you mentioned do not apply to all types of cause and effect. In short, you won't need all the higher planes for this

Even if you've never come across it, nothing's preventing it from existing. We don't need a concrete example of above baseline Type 5 Acausality to tell you that we accept it on our site, and once again, you'll have to take it up with individual page creators if you believe they should mention it on their profiles.

This has already been thoroughly rejected by Planck69, Agnaa, and myself, so @Antvasima, I do think we should have this thread closed, as Georredannea15 is just repeating a rejected point.