Type 5 Acausality Rewording

[Antvasima]

Is this even a Staff Discussion thread?

Sorry for comment btw

It is, yes, although without a staff only note.

Nevertheless, non-staff or honorary staff members should preferably only post here if they have something very important to say regarding this topic.

 

[Everything12]

@Antvasima

Getting some more staff opinion in here would be useful at this point. As this rewording is designed to help people who don't understand Acausality Type 5 understand it, even staff who aren't that knowledgeable on the subject would be useful to understand their issues with the wording.

 

[Fixxed]

So what about outside law/concept of causality. Will it being a higher degree of type 5??

 

[Everything12]

So what about outside law/concept of causality. Will it being a higher degree of type 5??

No. To achieve Acausality Type 5 is to be complete outside of causality. To be completely independent of causality would be to independent of it's concepts and laws as you are untouched by causality in any way and don't uterlise its rules at all, within reason.

 

[Fixxed]

No.

Why???

 

[Zencha9]

@Everything12 sorry for posting but can you give the list of suggestions that were brought up in this thread for the staff to see/comment on?

 

[Everything12]

Besides looking at the revised rewording in the opening post that is based off comments mentioned in this thread. I don't think all the suggestions can be listed in a single post, because they largely consist of conversations where multiple parties argue points with each other. So to fully understand what is being said by people would require looking at the whole conversation.

We'll besides simplifying the main argument to, how does time relate to causality when talking about Acausality Type 5?

 

[Fixxed]

No. To achieve Acausality Type 5 is to be complete outside of causality. To be completely independent of causality would be to independent of it's concepts and laws as you are untouched by causality in any way and don't uterlise its rules at all, within reason.

So i think the word "outside of causality" can be replace by "outside of concept of causality" or "outside of causality in conceptualy"

Because if just mention causality i think, people will think like "just the causality not the concept", it will make people think that CM 1 can effect aca 5 being because the concept is also completely independent in all reality and whatever level of the thing it govern. And make outside completely by time sound like enough for get type 5

 

[Vietthai96]

Peoples should stop with the mindset that concept being something special and > everything

 

[Everything12]

So i think the word "outside of causality" can be replace by "outside of concept of causality" or "outside of causality in conceptualy"

Because if just mention causality i think, people will think like "just the causality not the concept", it will make people think that CM 1 can effect aca 5 being because the concept is also completely independent in all reality and whatever level of the thing it govern. And outside completely by time sound like enough for get type 5

Needless complication, if you are outside completely then you just don't use causality at all in any way, so it's concepts and laws don't matter. Within reason.

Regarding Type 1 Concepts, you still have to prove that they don't cause change through causing an effect regardless of being independent of reality, that was changed with the Concept revision as their independence of reality is not that level.

 

[Agnaa]

No. To achieve Acausality Type 5 is to be complete outside of causality. To be completely independent of causality would be to independent of it's concepts and laws as you are untouched by causality in any way and don't uterlise its rules at all, within reason.

As I said before, I don't think we should say that characters are completely outside of causality, as that cannot be proven.

 

[Everything12]

As I said before, I don't think we should say that characters are completely outside of causality, as that cannot be proven.

You outside it completely within reason, aka only on the levels you have feats for.

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 it's feats.

 

[Greatsage13th]

You outside it completely within reason, aka only on the levels you have feats for.

the only reason Rim has type 4 instead of 5.

 

[Everything12]

the only reason Rim has type 4 instead of 5.

And

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.

 

[Sniper670]

Everything, last point doesn't work

They're type 5 because they're outside causality and cannot be interacted with.

So..... What feats again?

You either have feats of being able to interact with them or you don't

 

[Fixxed]

Needless complication, if you are outside completely then you just don't use causality at all in any way, so it's concepts and laws don't matter. Within reason.

Regarding Type 1 Concepts, you still have to prove that they don't cause change through causing an effect regardless of being independent of reality, that was changed with the Concept revision as their independence of reality is not that level.

I mean it will make people think like what i says above

If they see the concept page

Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

And than see the type 5 explanation it will make them think, CM can bypass type 5 in default

CM 1 is completely independent in all reality and whatever level of what it govern

Lets takes causality
It will be mean, the concept of causality is completely independent from causality in all reality and whataver level of the causality it self

 

[Sniper670]

the only reason Rim has type 4 instead of 5.

He'd be type 5 if there was no anti feats

 

[Agnaa]

You outside it completely within reason, aka only on the levels you have feats for.

Then, having another look at Fixxed question, is baseline "outside causality" equal to or worse than baseline "conceptually outside causality"?

 

[Everything12]

Just because you uterlise a force that is independent of reality does not mean that force can automatically interact with a being that isn't affected by any cause.

Then, having another look at Fixxed question, is baseline "outside causality" equal to or worse than baseline "conceptually outside causality"?

I'd say equal, as long as the concept of causality is on the same level as the system of causality they are outside. As they don't interact with causality at all on the level, so they don't interact with the concept of causality on that level.

 

[Vietthai96]

When it come to causality, everything could be anti-feat, depend on personal interpretation. For example a guy is acausality type 5, but get interacted by another guy. One could say it is anti-feat for acausality type 5, other could say it is a supporting feat for the other guy who have feat of interacting with type 5. At this point nothing objective, just personal interpretation, sometime we choose the high-end which is accepting acausality type 5, sometime we choose the low-end which is not accepting acausality type 5

 

[Everything12]

Everything, last point doesn't work

They're type 5 because they're outside causality and cannot be interacted with.

So..... What feats again?

You either have feats of being able to interact with them or you don't

Well statements work, feats of not being able to be interacted with added ontop of statements of being independent of causality also works. Plus a lack of antifeats is also additional evidence ontop.

When it come to causality, everything could be anti-feat, depend on personal interpretation. For example a guy is acausality type 5, but get interacted by another guy. One could say it is anti-feat for acausality type 5, other could say it is a supporting feat for the other guy who have feat of interacting with type 5. At this point nothing objective, just personal interpretation, sometime we choose the high-end which is accepting acausality type 5, sometime we choose the low-end which is not accepting acausality type 5

It's just a matter at looking a the context of the feat and judging if it's a antifeat or a feat for interacting with a acausal being. No explaination will be complete enough to completely remove the need to have people look at the context and judge the validity of the evidence.

 

[Greatsage13th]

what if one has no acausality type 5 and the other one has a transcendental form of acausality type 5. if the former could harm the latter, would it disprove the latter's acausality type 5?

 

[Everything12]

As I said, depends on the context and what any additional evidence adds.

 

[Mr._Undetected]

We'll besides simplifying the main argument to, how does time relate to causality when talking about Acausality Type 5?

Type 5 Acausality users, are not bound by the Event Process in the Timeline, they have no future because they are Transcend/Independent from Cause and Effect. In short they are someone who doesn't have to worry about events having consequences, in contrast to type 4.

Yeah maybe like that, I dunno.

Maybe I answered carelessly.

 

[Fixxed]

like I said, if it's just outside the causality system and being independent of a causality, then Concept Type 1 should have this as well. because Concept type 1 is not at all bound by reality and stands independent even from a normal causality system. therefore I think concept type 1 is able to interact with Acausality type 5 with your explanation.

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.

btw isn't this the same as Acausality type 4? but only improv version, because it depends on the scale shown. Pretty sure Acausality Type 4 is also outside the normal causality system but doesn't show the capability that it can't be interacted with by ordinary people. so If we add outside of causality + unable to interact= Acausality type 5

 

[Everything12]

Though Type 1 Concepts are independent of reality, the Wiki does not automatically include causality as part of the reality they are independent of, so that requires further evidence.

This is also off-topic.

 

[Agnaa]

While you do seem right about Type 1 concepts not necessarily being separate from causality, that discussion still seems on-topic to the definition and application of Acausality Type 5.

 

[Everything12]

That would be more a Type 1 Concept conversation then a Acausality Type 5 conversation in my opinion.

 

[Fixxed]

This is also off-topic.

I mean, isn't this also a good point talking about Counter or anything that can interact with Acausality Type 5 even if he doesn't have those Feats. (maybe it can be interacted with other abilities like cm1 or R-F difference). We must discuss this thoroughly so that there are no questions that cause debate in the future

 

[Everything12]

This line of question is more talking about the nature of Concepts then it is Acausality.

 

[Fixxed]

btw isn't this the same as Acausality type 4? but only improv version, because it depends on the scale shown. Pretty sure Acausality Type 4 is also outside the normal causality system but doesn't show the capability that it can't be interacted with by ordinary people. so If we add outside of causality + unable to interact= Acausality type 5

So just answer this

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima

Getting some more staff opinion in here would be useful at this point. As this rewording is designed to help people who don't understand Acausality Type 5 understand it, even staff who aren't that knowledgeable on the subject would be useful to understand their issues with the wording.

@DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Damage3245

Would any of you be willing to help out here please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm no expert on type 5 for much of the same reasons as Conceptual Manipulation, Nonexistent Physiology or the 1-A and above tiers. But things said by DontTalkDT and Shiva both seem legit for me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Jinsye]

On the type 5 acausality vs. conceptual manipulation idea. If the concept includes time and/or causality (ala you can manipulate the type 1 concept of time and causality) then you should be able to interact with type 5s.

This is because the type 1 concept of causality or time would be naturally independent of those structures, as time/causality would participate in them and not the other way round

Thats besides the point though.

 

[Everything12]

So just answer this

Pretty much.

 

[GyroNutz]

To clarify, if a character is stated to be [textbook acausality 5 description], but has no showings of being unaffected by attacks/things due to this, they wouldn't be granted the ability?

 

[Everything12]

To clarify, if a character is stated to be [textbook acausality 5 description], but has no showings of being unaffected by attacks/things due to this, they wouldn't be granted the ability?

Yes, like how we treated Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry. Despite claims of being outside causality, because they showed no feats of being outside normal interaction and anti-feats of being interacted we only gave them Acausality Type 4.

 

[GyroNutz]

Yes, like how we treated Rakudai Kishi no Cavalry. Despite claims of being outside causality, because they showed no feats of being outside normal interaction and anti-feats of being interacted we only gave them Acausality Type 4.

Alright, I can get behind this then

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Type 5 needing the character to be hard to interact with was pretty clear to me, since even a description that sounded type 5 would only net type 4 if they could still be interacted with normally.

The more confusing part is whether you needed to explicitly mention causality or you could still get type 5 if while there’s no direct mention of causality, there’s statements that could imply that in effect (ex. transcending the concept of time) and it demonstrably is difficult to interact with.