Type 5 Acausality Rewording

[Antvasima]

What did DontTalk think that we should do here?

 

[Everything12]

They raised some issues they had with the initial rewording I proposed, and I agreed to said issued and created the rewording I have now based on the feedback.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Did DontTalk ever evaluate and give a go-ahead for your reworded version, and if not, can you write an explanation post for what he needs to evaluate please?

 

[Everything12]

DontTalk created this description based off my initial one, I then took it an altered it based off the conversations had afterwards to get what I currently have.

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside all systems of causality. Characters of this nature need to have 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.

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 a irregular relationship with causality otherwise.

I guess having them look at what I currently have and see if they have any further issues would be helpful.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

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.

This is the part @DontTalkDT should comment on since that’s pretty much the main reason for this thread to begin with.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-5-acausality-rewording.139477/post-4939615

https://vsbattles.com/threads/type-5-acausality-rewording.139477/post-4939624

 

[Phoenks]

Not sure if this has been answered already, but could someone explain to me how exactly you prove someone has Type 5 Acausality?

From what I'm seeing, it seems Type 5 means you are completely absent from Cause and Effect. Which, if that is the case, then you should be a completely stagnant entity who never interacts with or is interacted with by anything on any level of existence. As even the smallest motion, or even thoughts would fall under causality and thereby be an anti-feat.

To me, it seems like very - very few characters, if any, would qualify for such a thing. And the idea that someone can "bypass" this acausality seems to contradict its definition entirely.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Not staff, but one of my biggest issues with Type 5 is that it often contradicts itself.

How exactly can a Type 5 even fight? As even the notion of even "landing an attack" or "causing damage" would not even apply to their own being.
Type 5 implies they are completely independent of cause and effect, so how exactly can a Type 5 interact with another being? As doing so, means they are still participating in a causality system.

It would go both ways; they cannot be interacted with, and they cannot interact with others, as doing so is an "effect".

Hell, things such as moving, breathing, and even speaking implies there is a system for them to do so in the first place. Type 5s "fighting" makes absolutely no sense, as it shows that they can effect each other, although Type 5 doesn't even participate in causality at all; which said "being affected" shows that they DO participate in it.

 

[Everything12]

Because fiction, same way a nonexistent entity can do anything.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Said "nonexistent entity" would be participating in "effects" still, which means it would still be a contradiction by the description of Type 5. Also no, a nonexistent entity cannot "do anything", as that is completely false and can be labeled as NFL if taken in a literal manner.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Said "nonexistent entity" would be participating in "effects" still, which means it would still be a contradiction by the description of Type 5. Also no, a nonexistent entity cannot "do anything", as that is completely false and can be labeled as NFL if taken in a literal manner.

Some verses elaborate on why they can interchangeably react.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

.

Some verses elaborate on why they can interchangeably react.

...And what about verses that don't? Also, how about character who aren't "nonexistent entities" but can still fight each other while both being Type 5? Nonexistent entities aren't the only ones with Type 5 you know.

 

[Vietthai96]

There is something called plot duration. Many character unaffected by this, uninteracted by that, still bound by plot, we can't objectively measure power based on its definition alone, that how fiction. Same with other type of power or stats, for the sake of plot and story, everything can't happen, most author doesn't care about power & abilities as hard as us, they will do anything for the sake of story

 

[Greatsage13th]

.

...And what about verses that don't? Also, how about character who aren't "nonexistent entities" but can still fight each other while both being Type 5? Nonexistent entities aren't the only ones with Type 5 you know.

Just assume that their powers allows them to interact with these beings.

 

[Phoenks]

Just assume that their powers allows them to interact with these beings.

"interacting" with someone who lacks causality shouldn't be possible at all. It makes absolutely no sense and greatly contradicts the idea that they lack some form of cause and effect.

To be honest, I think that Type 5 should be removed. There are no characters I can name that completely transcend or exist outside of all forms of causality. They just operate on a higher version of it. Which is already covered under Type 4.

 

[Agnaa]

"How can Type 5 Acausals still be subject to cause and effect?"

They're subject to a higher level of it, just not a lower level of it. They're demonstrably not completely outside of it.

"How can nonexistent beings do things?"

Because they still exist on some level. If they were truly nonexistent, they would not exist to be indexed.

 

[Greatsage13th]

"How can Type 5 Acausals still be subject to cause and effect?"

They're subject to a higher level of it, just not a lower level of it. They're demonstrably not completely outside of it.

"How can nonexistent beings do things?"

Because they still exist on some level. If they were truly nonexistent, they would not exist to be indexed.

That sounds paradoxical.

 

[Agnaa]

"They're subject to a higher form not a lower form" is a hell of a lot better then "Let's just pretend that they're beyond every form despite anti-feats". And it's what we use for just about every NLF thing on the wiki.

"Why do we say invulnerable characters can be damaged by higher-D characters?"

Because their invulnerability only works to the extent of their setting.

"Why aren't all omnipotent characters tier 0?"

Because we only consider them all powerful over their setting.

 

[Phoenks]

I believe that Acausality Type 5 should be removed entirely. The characters here can not be proven to exist outside of all variations and levels of causality without extreme amounts of mental gymnastics and dismissal of anti-feats.

I agree with what Agnaa says. It is much more likely (and more provable) for a character to simply operate on/be subject to a higher form of causality, rather than not existing within causality at all. In which case, it would be Type 4 Acausality. So there is no point in having Type 5.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I believe that Acausality Type 5 should be removed entirely. The characters here can not be proven to exist outside of all variations and levels of causality without extreme amounts of mental gymnastics and dismissal of anti-feats.

I agree with what Agnaa says. It is much more likely (and more provable) for a character to simply operate on/be subject to a higher form of causality, rather than not existing within causality at all. In which case, it would be Type 4 Acausality. So there is no point in having Type 5.

Agreed.

 

[Agnaa]

I believe that Acausality Type 5 should be removed entirely. The characters here can not be proven to exist outside of all variations and levels of causality without extreme amounts of mental gymnastics and dismissal of anti-feats.

I agree with what Agnaa says. It is much more likely (and more provable) for a character to simply operate on/be subject to a higher form of causality, rather than not existing within causality at all. In which case, it would be Type 4 Acausality. So there is no point in having Type 5.

The point of the separation is that Type 4 is being subject to a different form of causality with no elaboration, which may just provide resistance to certain causal techniques. While Type 5 is subject to a different form of causality which makes it so that they're unaffected by characters/weapons/powers operating on ordinary causality.

 

[Fixxed]

Like i says above i think "outside the causality in conceptually" is more accurate than just "outside causality"

Lets take NEP for example, NEP 2 is nonexistance beyond the nonexistance or NEP 1. But if the character just state to be more deeper/more layered than the NEP 1 character or more deeper than nothingness it would't have NEP 2. Is just superior nonexistance (superior NEP 1)

NEP 2 is nonexistance beyond the nonexsitance in conceptually, beyond the idea of NEP 1 or nothingness it self. So it doesn't matter even if the NEP 1 have 99 layer or infinite layer above bassline, it can't reach NEP 2

I think that can be used in case about type 4 and type 5

Type 4 just outside causality but not conceptually
Type 5 outside causality in conceptually

 

[Fixxed]

The point of the separation is that Type 4 is being subject to a different form of causality with no elaboration, which may just provide resistance to certain causal techniques. While Type 5 is subject to a different form of causality which makes it so that they're unaffected by characters/weapons/powers operating on ordinary causality.

Hey what do you think about this

Like i says above i think "outside the causality in conceptually" is more accurate than just "outside causality"

Lets take NEP for example, NEP 2 is nonexistance beyond the nonexistance or NEP 1. But if the character just state to be more deeper/more layered than the NEP 1 character or more deeper than nothingness it would't have NEP 2. Is just superior nonexistance (superior NEP 1)

NEP 2 is nonexistance beyond the nonexsitance in conceptually, beyond the idea of NEP 1 or nothingness it self. So it doesn't matter even if the NEP 1 have 99 layer or infinite layer above bassline, it can't reach NEP 2

I think that can be used in case about type 4 and type 5

Type 4 just outside causality but not conceptually
Type 5 outside causality in conceptually

 

[Agnaa]

NEP 2 isn't "NEP 1 but conceptually". NEP 1 is "If existence is 1, and nonexistence is 0, this character is 0", NEP 2 is "If existence is 1, and nonexistence is 0, this character is neither 1 nor 0".

And if being outside of causality conceptually (what the hell does that even mean?) confers no benefits, I see no reason for it to be a different type.

 

[Fixxed]

NEP 2 isn't "NEP 1 but conceptually". NEP 1 is "If existence is 1, and nonexistence is 0, this character is 0", NEP 2 is "If existence is 1, and

Yeah, the binary 1 and 0 is duality of existance (1) and nonexistance (0). And duality is mean 2 fundamental concept that oppose each other. So NEP 2 is beyond concept of existance and nonexistance, and NEP 1 is part of nonexistance or binary 0

And if being outside of causality conceptually (what the hell does that even mean?) confers no benefits, I see no reason for it to be a different type.

It will have same reason as NEP 1 and 2

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Even though Type 4 already covers higher levels of casuality. By that description, Type 5 is already covered by Type 4 since it already has higher levels covered.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

You're just making Type 5 just a higher extension of Type 4 at that point, which pretty much has no benefits other than just being a "higher level"

Is that really worth creating an entirely new type over?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, the binary 1 and 0 is duality of existance (1) and nonexistance (0). And duality is mean 2 fundamental concept that oppose each other. So NEP 2 is beyond concept of existance and nonexistance, and NEP 1 is part of nonexistance or binary 0

Duality does not mean two fundamental concepts that oppose each other. It means a system with two states. That's it. Sometimes this involves conceptual stuff, sometimes it doesn't. "True or false" is a duality, and you can lie outside of that duality by having the state of "paradoxical" instead. That involves absolutely zero conceptual transcendence of the system. NEP 2 does not inherently involve anything conceptual.

 

[Vietthai96]

Also, why the hell we must emphasis so much on conceptual this and that, it is just like we try to treat conceptual being something too special, which will just drag us back to the old system

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Yeah, the binary 1 and 0 is duality of existance (1) and nonexistance (0). And duality is mean 2 fundamental concept that oppose each other. So NEP 2 is beyond concept of existance and nonexistance, and NEP 1 is part of nonexistance or binary 0

Duality does not mean two fundamental concepts that oppose each other. It means a system with two states. That's it. Sometimes this involves conceptual stuff, sometimes it doesn't. "True or false" is a duality, and you can lie outside of that duality by having the state of "paradoxical" instead. That involves absolutely zero conceptual transcendence of the system. NEP 2 does not inherently involve anything conceptual.

Facts.

Kinda the reason why "paradoxical NEP" (Type 3 NEP) became a thing.

 

[Fixxed]

Duality does not mean two fundamental concepts that oppose each other. It means a system with two states. That's it. Sometimes this involves conceptual stuff, sometimes it doesn't. "True or false" is a duality, and you can lie outside of that duality by having the state of "paradoxical" instead. That involves absolutely zero conceptual transcendence of the system. NEP 2 does not inherently involve anything conceptual.

I read this

Dualism in cosmology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And found duality is concept, and i make thread about that they says duality is concept

https://vsbattles.com/threads/duality-and-conceptual-duality.136238/

And DT says NEP 2 is beyond nonexistance in conceptually

https://vsbattles.com/threads/nonexistent-physiology-updating-characters-to-the-new-types.130338/post-4589713

 

[Fixxed]

Even though Type 4 already covers higher levels of casuality. By that description, Type 5 is already covered by Type 4 since it already has higher levels covered.

You're just making Type 5 just a higher extension of Type 4 at that point, which pretty much has no benefits other than just being a "higher level"

Is that really worth creating an entirely new type over?

I mean causality in whatever level cant reach aca 5 being like NEP 1 to NEP 2

NEP 2 is nonexistance beyond the nonexsitance in conceptually, beyond the idea of NEP 1 or nothingness it self. So it doesn't matter even if the NEP 1 have 99 layer or infinite layer above bassline, it can't reach NEP 2

 

[Furudo_Erika]

[/QUOTE]

I read this

Dualism in cosmology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And found duality is concept, and i make thread about that they says duality is concept

https://vsbattles.com/threads/duality-and-conceptual-duality.136238/

And DT says NEP 2 is beyond nonexistance in conceptually

https://vsbattles.com/threads/nonexistent-physiology-updating-characters-to-the-new-types.130338/post-4589713

Nonexistence at a conceptual level isn't enough for Type 2.

It outright says it "doesn't justify it"

Note: "Generally, conceptual nonexistence alone doesn't justify Nature Type 2. Nothingness/nonexistence itself has to be the thing that was (conceptually) erased."

 

[Agnaa]

1. Dualism as a spiritual belief =/= duality in general. Dualism as a spiritual belief is about the guiding conceptual forces of the world, not specific instantiations.

2. The Transduality page explicitly says that that's wrong.

Type 2 refers to characters whose existence may be beyond all dual systems within the nature of their reality, but not duality itself on a conceptual level

3. DT's post says the opposite; he says that conceptual nonexistence isn't enough.

 

[Fixxed]

Nonexistence at a conceptual level isn't enough for Type 2.

Note: "Generally, conceptual nonexistence alone doesn't justify Nature Type 2. Nothingness/nonexistence itself has to be the thing that was (conceptually) erased."

Not nonexitance at conceptual level, but beyond nonexistance it self in conceptual level

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Not nonexitance at conceptual level, but beyond nonexistance it self in conceptual level

DT wasn't saying being "beyond nonexistence itself is a conceptual level", rather DT was asking a question on why it was believed.
"And she should have Nature Type 2 due to being conceptually erased?" Look at the context on how it was used.

Then DT said "Generally, conceptual nonexistence alone doesn't justify Nature Type 2. Nothingness/nonexistence itself has to be the thing that was (conceptually) erased." Implying, that simply being "beyond nonexistence itself" is not justified to be conceptual.

Instead, it is only conceptual if the VERY CONCEPT of nonexistence was erased.

 

[Fixxed]

1. Dualism as a spiritual belief =/= duality in general. Dualism as a spiritual belief is about the guiding conceptual forces of the world, not specific instantiations.

So where i can find explanation about duality in general???

2. The Transduality page explicitly says that that's wrong.

Doesn't it mean "every extanded of duality system it self" so it can only have by 1A character

3. DT's post says the opposite; he says that conceptual nonexistence isn't enough.

I think you have to read again

 

[Furudo_Erika]

So where i can find explanation about duality in general???

Doesn't it mean "every extanded of duality system it self" so it can only have by 1A character

I think you have to read again

DT wasn't saying being "beyond nonexistence itself is a conceptual level", rather DT was asking a question on why it was believed.
"And she should have Nature Type 2 due to being conceptually erased?" Look at the context on how it was used.

Then DT said "Generally, conceptual nonexistence alone doesn't justify Nature Type 2. Nothingness/nonexistence itself has to be the thing that was (conceptually) erased." Implying, that simply being "beyond nonexistence itself" is not justified to be conceptual.

Instead, it is only conceptual if the VERY CONCEPT of nonexistence was erased.

Read the context behind the post first.

 

[Fixxed]

DT wasn't saying being "beyond nonexistence itself is a conceptual level", rather DT was asking a question on why it was believed.
"And she should have Nature Type 2 due to being conceptually erased?" Look at the context on how it was used.

Then DT said "Generally, conceptual nonexistence alone doesn't justify Nature Type 2. Nothingness/nonexistence itself has to be the thing that was (conceptually) erased." Implying, that simply being "beyond nonexistence itself" is not justified to be conceptual.

Instead, it is only conceptual if the VERY CONCEPT of nonexistence was erased.

DT says the nonexistance it self must erased in conceptually

I mean not being nonexistance in conceptual level and can have NEP 2. But being outside the nonexistance it self on conceptual level and can have NEP 2

And the "conceptual nonexistance" he mean is the aspeck of nonexistance (aspeck type 2)

 

[Jinsye]

Yall are derailing super hard.