-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Type 5 Acausality Rewording
- Thread starter Everything12
- Start date
-
- Tags
- acausality
- Status
- 7,036
- 4,389
- Thread starter
- #82
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.
- 7,036
- 4,389
- Thread starter
- #84
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.
I guess having them look at what I currently have and see if they have any further issues would be helpful.
I guess having them look at what I currently have and see if they have any further issues would be helpful.
- 12,523
- 3,490
This is the part @DontTalkDT should comment on since that’s pretty much the main reason for this thread to begin with.
- 165,692
- 73,424
- 10,988
- 9,762
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.
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.
Last edited:
- 1,292
- 345
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.
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.
- 7,036
- 4,389
- Thread starter
- #89
Because fiction, same way a nonexistent entity can do anything.
- 1,292
- 345
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.
- 11,265
- 2,476
Some verses elaborate on why they can interchangeably react.
- 1,292
- 345
.
...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.
...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
He/Him- 9,351
- 12,530
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
- 11,265
- 2,476
Just assume that their powers allows them to interact with these beings.
- 10,988
- 9,762
"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.
Last edited:
- 15,051
- 12,817
"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.
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.
- 11,265
- 2,476
That sounds paradoxical.
- 15,051
- 12,817
"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.
"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.
- 10,988
- 9,762
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.
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.
- 1,292
- 345
Agreed.
- 15,051
- 12,817
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.
- 3,536
- 1,970
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
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
- 3,536
- 1,970
- 15,051
- 12,817
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.
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.
- 3,536
- 1,970
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
It will have same reason as NEP 1 and 2
- 1,292
- 345
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.
- 1,292
- 345
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?
Is that really worth creating an entirely new type over?
- 15,051
- 12,817
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.
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
He/Him- 9,351
- 12,530
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
- 1,292
- 345
- 3,536
- 1,970
I read this
Dualism in cosmology - Wikipedia
And DT says NEP 2 is beyond nonexistance in conceptually
- 3,536
- 1,970
I mean causality in whatever level cant reach aca 5 being like NEP 1 to NEP 2
- 1,292
- 345
[/QUOTE]
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."
I read this
And found duality is concept, and i make thread about that they says duality is conceptDualism in cosmology - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And DT says NEP 2 is beyond nonexistance in conceptually
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."
- 15,051
- 12,817
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.
3. DT's post says the opposite; he says that conceptual nonexistence isn't enough.
2. The Transduality page explicitly says that that's wrong.
3. DT's post says the opposite; he says that conceptual nonexistence isn't enough.
- 3,536
- 1,970
Not nonexitance at conceptual level, but beyond nonexistance it self in conceptual level
- 1,292
- 345
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.
- 3,536
- 1,970
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
- 1,292
- 345
- 3,536
- 1,970
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)
- Status
Similar threads
