• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tetsuya1029 said:
My line of logic is that type 5 means those who are not bound by conventional causality. They can still move and stuff but the way they move is alien to how we understand it.
Click to expand...

Type 4: Irregular Causality: "Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality"

That kinda describes Type 4.
Type 4 literally says they literally operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality.

Conventional causality shouldn't apply to Type 4s, as they don't even operate or participate in conventional causality in the first place; instead operating in one that is alien to it. If they don't even operate under it, they are effectively unbound by conventional causality since it doesn't apply to them.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
Type 4: Irregular Causality: "Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality"

That kinda describes Type 4.
Type 4 literally says they literally operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality.

Conventional causality shouldn't apply to Type 4s, as they don't even operate or participate in conventional causality in the first place; instead operating in one that is alien to it. If they don't even operate under it, they are effectively unbound by conventional causality since it doesn't apply to them.
Click to expand...
right but the difference for what I proposed as my line of logic apposed to type 4 is that type 4 acausality still requires causality as they need to walk/breathe/punch/eat/etc, typically. Look at the Rakudai series. they are just immune to someone basically being like "okay you are fated to trip over your own two feet in 5 seconds" as apposed to outright you don't walk normally, breathe normally, think normally, they would use extremely alien logic to us considering they use a completely different set of causality, therefore different logic. The difference being that type 4 is immune to fate manipulation but requires causality to do them minor stuff such as walking and punching and my type 5 I propose includes fate manipulation along with the small stuff.
 
Tetsuya1029 said:
right but the difference for what I proposed as my line of logic apposed to type 4 is that type 4 acausality still requires causality as they need to walk/breathe/punch/eat/etc, typically. Look at the Rakudai series. they are just immune to someone basically being like "okay you are fated to trip over your own two feet in 5 seconds" as apposed to outright you don't walk normally, breathe normally, think normally, they would use extremely alien logic to us considering they use a completely different set of causality, therefore different logic. The difference being that type 4 is immune to fate manipulation but requires causality to do them minor stuff such as walking and punching and my type 5 I propose includes fate manipulation along with the small stuff.
Click to expand...
So, it's moreso operating a different logic system to do said causal actions, while being unbound by causality? Thus bypassing the paradox by introducing different logic?
 
Tetsuya1029 said:
right but the difference for what I proposed as my line of logic apposed to type 4 is that type 4 acausality still requires causality as they need to walk/breathe/punch/eat/etc, typically. Look at the Rakudai series. they are just immune to someone basically being like "okay you are fated to trip over your own two feet in 5 seconds" as apposed to outright you don't walk normally, breathe normally, think normally, they would use extremely alien logic to us considering they use a completely different set of causality, therefore different logic. The difference being that type 4 is immune to fate manipulation but requires causality to do them minor stuff such as walking and punching and my type 5 I propose includes fate manipulation along with the small stuff.
Click to expand...

I mean, Type 2 can do this as well:

Type 2: Temporal Singularity: Characters with this type of Acausality do not exist in either the past or the future, only the present. This means they cannot be affected by changes to the past, while also making them resistant to Precognition that works by viewing the future, as they do not exist within it, and Fate Manipulation, for the same reason. In essence, they are able to choose their own fates, but they remain just as vulnerable at the point in time in which they do exist.

By existing in just the present, they don't have a future for fate to even describe in the first place. It may be Type 4, if they are also shown they exist in more than just the present. But, it is contextual tbh.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
I mean, Type 2 can do this as well:

Type 2: Temporal Singularity: Characters with this type of Acausality do not exist in either the past or the future, only the present. This means they cannot be affected by changes to the past, while also making them resistant to Precognition that works by viewing the future, as they do not exist within it, and Fate Manipulation, for the same reason. In essence, they are able to choose their own fates, but they remain just as vulnerable at the point in time in which they do exist.

By existing in just the present, they don't have a future for fate to even describe in the first place. It may be Type 4, if they are also shown they exist in more than just the present. But, it is contextual tbh.
Click to expand...
but again, typically type 2 do normal things such as walking and punching and whatnot. They are just immune to causality tied to time. That doesn't make them independent of basic causal actions.
 
Tetsuya1029 said:
but again, typically type 2 do normal things such as walking and punching and whatnot. They are just immune to causality tied to time. That doesn't make them independent of basic causal actions.
Click to expand...

I'm linking it to Type 4s being immune to Fate Manipulation, not Type 5.

Also, by logic of the wiki, Type 4s can be still interacted normally, even by those without Acasuality in any form, although by definition, they "do" things differently. Which makes absolutely no sense imo.

Which again, it is contextual:
If they are immune to Fate Manipulation via only existing in the present, it is Type 2.

If they are immune, although they exist in multiple time periods, then it is Type 4. Since showing they exist in more than just the present, proves it isn't Type 2.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
I'm linking it to Type 4s being immune to Fate Manipulation, not Type 5.

Also, by logic of the wiki, Type 4s can be still interacted normally, even by those without Acasuality in any form, although by definition, they "do" things differently. Which makes absolutely no sense imo.

Which again, it is contextual:
If they are immune to Fate Manipulation via only existing in the present, it is Type 2.

If they are immune, although they exist in multiple time periods, then it is Type 4. Since showing they exist in more than just the present, proves it isn't Type 2.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this is relevant to what I said for what I propose type 5 to be
 
Though saying Type 5 works by "operating on different logic", kinda makes it not "Acausality".

As then, you would need to prove they operate on different logic to perform causal actions while not operating in it in the first place. Making them not only unbound by causality, but also operate on a different system of logic to perform causal actions.

That's entering more "Illogical Physiology" or something.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
Though saying Type 5 works by "operating on different logic", kinda makes it not "Acausality".

As then, you would need to prove they operate on different logic to perform causal actions while not operating in it in the first place. Making them not only unbound by causality, but also operate on a different system of logic to perform causal actions.

That's entering more "Illogical Physiology" or something.
Click to expand...
Well if you look at all other actuality types, causality is utilized in some form or fashion. Like I stated earlier, lack go causation is still causation, just on a different set of causality or nonexistent physiology. I wouldn't be pedantic enough as to say "well since the word acausality means lack go causation, you can't say it works on separate of causation because that is still causation" when one, all other types of acausality types fall nuder this, and two, acausality in and of itself is paradoxical, which means we can uniformity rule out the line of reasoning of "it's still cessation so you can't call it acausality" when in reality, colloquially, acausality just means not normal causality rather than absolute unrestrained causality.
 
Honestly, the only one that's really a paradox is Type 5.
All the other types can be used without being a paradox, even Type 4 (Or at least how Type 4 SHOULD be used)
 
I think we could define type 5 as transcending change due to being outside of causality.

Whether you become invulnerable due to acausality is a matter of what powers a given verse allots to you for transcending causality rather than what level you are transcending causality on. I don't think we can assume a character will be unaffectable by physical means by default for transcending causality
 
And I don't think the implication of current type 5 that transcending causality automatically makes you immune to change by conventional means is an idea that is supported universally by fiction. Which is why I think explicitly requiring you to be beyond change would be better
 
And being "beyond change" would literally be stagnation; "the state of not flowing or moving".
Which makes it paradoxical in fiction, especially if two characters can fight despite being beyond change.
 
Andytrenom said:
And I don't think the implication of current type 5 that transcending causality automatically makes you immune to change by conventional means is an idea that is supported universally by fiction. Which is why I think explicitly requiring you to be beyond change would be better
Click to expand...
That's part of what the rewording will do.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
DontTalkDT said:
Transcending time is not enough. Causality doesn't require time. Like, think of time travelers. They don't go straight forward in time, but there still is a causality there.
Click to expand...
This statement makes 0 sense.

A time traveller still participates in causality, and they also participate in time. So what.
 
Jinsye said:
This statement makes 0 sense.

A time traveller still participates in causality, and they also participate in time. So what.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they don't participate in time in a linear manner. I assumed when you linked causality to time it was due to the idea that usually cause has to come before effect in time.

If that's not the case, I absolutely don't see how you even justify the idea that time and causality would be related. After all, if we agree that the way time flows has no impact on the way causality behaves, then they really don't correlate at all.
 
Though time lists the chronology of events and dates.

So in a way, traveling back in time can "reverse" cause and effect by reversing events caused by them. Causality and time are indeed correlated; as time can reverse effects created by causality, indicating some form of connection.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Yeah, but they don't participate in time in a linear manner. I assumed when you linked causality to time it was due to the idea that usually cause has to come before effect in time.

If that's not the case, I absolutely don't see how you even justify the idea that time and causality would be related. After all, if we agree that the way time flows has no impact on the way causality behaves, then they really don't correlate at all.
Click to expand...
If time is non-linear, then causality would also be non-linear. A character could perform an action which precedes itself or even perceive chronological events out of order.

Temporal paradoxes directly correlate to Causality, even. For example, altering an event in the past, which then creates consequences in the future.
 
Just gonna remind everyone of our official explanation of Immeasurable Speed:
Immeasurable speed characters are far beyond even those Infinite speed characters listed above. They perceive infinite speed characters as completely frozen, and they can travel forward and backward in time at will. They have the speed necessary to hop from the beginning of time, to the end of time, and anywhere in between as casually as a human being can roll their eyes left or right. This also means their reaction time is faster than instantaneous. They can dodge an attack that already has been struck, and they can strike someone even before they launched an attack. And they can do all of this via sheer speed.
Click to expand...
(although I hear DontTalk has problems with it anyway so)
 
I have seen Type 4 acting somewhat like Immeasurable speed in fact.

Especially in systems where the effect precedes cause.
(Instead of Cause > Effect, it is Effect > Cause)

By this, you can literally land a hit (effect) before even making the attack (cause).
 
Furudo_Erika said:
Honestly, the only one that's really a paradox is Type 5.
All the other types can be used without being a paradox, even Type 4 (Or at least how Type 4 SHOULD be used)
Click to expand...
no. Every single type of acausality is paradoxical in someway or sense. It wouldn't be casual in some way if it wasn't. Is someone only exists within the present, how would they exist in the future or rather how come they don't exist in the future or past? Especially when considering that the present is a subjective term from a perspective standpoint. things like those make aspects of acasualty in and of itself illogical.
 
Tetsuya1029 said:
no. Every single type of acausality is paradoxical in someway or sense. It wouldn't be casual in some way if it wasn't. Is someone only exists within the present, how would they exist in the future or rather how come they don't exist in the future or past? Especially when considering that the present is a subjective term from a perspective standpoint. things like those make aspects of acasualty in and of itself illogical.
Click to expand...

Because Acausality is a physiological trait.

You can "remember" an event that happened that a Type 2 did in the past, as that's relying on YOUR memory, but tells nothing about their physiology.

However, if you try to use Retrocognition to see them in the past, it would fail as they don't exist in the past. If you use Precognition to see them in the future, it also wouldn't work as they don't exist in the future.

There's no paradox, as everything they have done "in the past" has occurred once in the present. It sounds completely logical.
 
Meaning, they will only exist "in the future" whenever the present progresses enough to reach said future. But their nature doesn't have an existence outside the current present.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
Because Acausality is a physiological trait.

You can "remember" an event that happened that a Type 2 did in the past, as that's relying on YOUR memory, but tells nothing about their physiology.

However, if you try to use Retrocognition to see them in the past, it would fail as they don't exist in the past. If you use Precognition to see them in the future, it also wouldn't work as they don't exist in the future.

There's no paradox, as everything they have done "in the past" has occurred once in the present. It sounds completely logical.
Click to expand...
That does not change the fact that one cannot even place a term on the present due to how subjective it is. My point is that every single type of acausality in illogical in some sort of way. illogical is a synonym for acausal.
 
You do know that all time is subjective/relative, right?
That's saying time in general is subjective if periods in time, such as the present is subjective, and thus illogical.
 
Tetsuya1029 said:
I never said all time feats are illogical. I said all types of acausality is illogical in some sense or fashion
Click to expand...
Tetsuya1029 said:
no. Every single type of acausality is paradoxical in someway or sense. It wouldn't be casual in some way if it wasn't. Is someone only exists within the present, how would they exist in the future or rather how come they don't exist in the future or past? Especially when considering that the present is a subjective term from a perspective standpoint. things like those make aspects of acasualty in and of itself illogical.
Click to expand...
Due to saying the present being subjective (which all time is), and thus acausality is illogical, you kind of are.

Also, let's back up a bit. As we're using "paradox" in two entirely different ways. The way I am using it, relates more towards "contradiction".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
71
Views
10K
Planck69
Planck69
Laviossiii
Question about Acausality and Beyond Dimensional Existance
Replies
2
Views
170
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
907
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
BeTheWay1rst
Question about Acausality (Type 4)
Replies
1
Views
220
Samael_010
Samael_010
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
2K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Back
Top