• 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.
In the way that, whenever it is shown, Type 5 like, always contradicts itself due to exactly how it is described, and even the suggested rewording still doesn't solve this problem.

"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."

What this still fails to solve, are Type 5s still interacting are able to fight and injure each other, even though they are suppose to "be unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality", which this would still be a causal system: Make an attack (cause) > Injure the opponent (effect)

All the other types however, don't really contradict themselves.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
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".
Click to expand...
I said the present is subjective. Sure you can say future and past would be too but that does not encompass all time related feats. Rewinding time is not subjective. Acausality in and of itself is paradoxical is my point
 
But here's the thing: Causality and time are not the same. They are related, sure. But causality can exist without time, so you cannot exactly pit them in with "time feats", as those are different things.

Sure reversing time can reverse causal events, but if time itself is destroyed, that doesn't mean causality is destroyed as well automatically.
Hell, it can even still flow without time.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
But here's the thing: Causality and time are not the same. They are related, sure. But causality can exist without time, so you cannot exactly pit them in with "time feats", as those are different things.

Sure reversing time can reverse causal events, but if time itself is destroyed, that doesn't mean causality is destroyed as well automatically.
Hell, it can even still flow without time.
Click to expand...
Just look at combat in "timeless voids".
 
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.

There is still time there. The cause goes in the past while the effect is in the future, or the cause is in the future while the effect goes to the past. All causal points still reside in time.

If it's a verse which has split timelines, timelines that alter themselves, or otherwise doesn't allow for circular causality like that, there's necessarily some higher form of pseudo-time by which the timelines are being updated from state to state, which is where the time traveler's causality would lie.

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

If it doesn't grant them anything, then Type 4 Acausality fits that sort of thing perfectly fine. I don't want the terms to be confusing, where Type 5 can either mean "completely invulnerable" or "resists 2 abilities".

Hell, if it doesn't grant them invulnerability to anything, then that statement is heavily and repeatedly contradicted, to the point where I'd consider it an outlier.

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.

There correlated because causal events and effects occur at certain times.

If there was no time, all events would occur at once, and there would be no change from that. Calling them "events" then is strange, since it's just a glorified starting-state, in which there is no change and outside of which there is no change.

illogical is a synonym for acausal.

?????
 
Furudo_Erika said:
What this still fails to solve, are Type 5s still interacting are able to fight and injure each other, even though they are suppose to "be unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality", which this would still be a causal system: Make an attack (cause) > Injure the opponent (effect)
Click to expand...
The same way they can interact with their own bodies. They share the same nature

The way I see it, they exist on a logic system that does not use cause and effect to enact changes on themselves.

It's not really that they cannot be affected, it's just that their physiology is hidden behind that logic, that makes them immune to beings who do not use that logic

Something like Nonexistent Physiology
 
Yemma670 said:
The same way they can interact with their own bodies. They share the same nature

The way I see it, they exist on a logic system that does not use cause and effect to enact changes on themselves.

It's not really that they cannot be affected, it's just that their physiology is hidden behind that logic, that makes them immune to beings who do not use that logic

Something like Nonexistent Physiology
Click to expand...
So, that means they are innately on a different logic system...which causes another myriad of problems.

Because you know, literal logic is different.
 
Yemma670 said:
The same way they can interact with their own bodies. They share the same nature

The way I see it, they exist on a logic system that does not use cause and effect to enact changes on themselves.

It's not really that they cannot be affected, it's just that their physiology is hidden behind that logic, that makes them immune to beings who do not use that logic

Something like Nonexistent Physiology
Click to expand...

Also, their nature has nothing to do with this....and where does the description say anything about existing on a different logic system? As by your description, they must be on a different logic system in the first place for it to work. The problem is, is that it says absolutely nothing about different logic, so the argument that "they exist on different" logic is irrelevant if it doesn't even mention anything about "different logic" at all.

The problem is: "Type 5 contradicts what it says it does." It's nothing to do with their nature, but the fact it disproves its own self...so how do you prove it, if it outright proves itself wrong?
 
Last edited:
I know my crt failed, but I agree with Furudo erika. Type 4 should imply you're (almost, if not fully) immune to any changes/hax reliant on regular causality. Type 5 should be fully unbound by any variation/potency of causality. How about also changing what type 4 does? To this: "Type 4: Irregular Causality: Users of this type exist on a different or irregular level of Cause and Effect, different to our own. This grants them resistances to abilities that rely on conventional cause and effect such as: Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, Precognition, and similar abilities. Any attempts of a person or ability that functions in a conventional casual system cannot traditionally harm the user as the attack will be bound within a system the user does not exist within. Beings stated to exist "outside" causality (with no further context) also fits this category."
 
@kuramamyfav68 Welp, you're free to believe that, but that sorta thing has been argued against extensively in the thread already; you're not really bringing up any new points.
 
kuramamyfav68 said:
I know my crt failed, but I agree with Furudo erika. Type 4 should imply you're (almost, if not fully) immune to any changes/hax reliant on regular causality. Type 5 should be fully unbound by any variation/potency of causality. How about also changing what type 4 does? To this: "Type 4: Irregular Causality: Users of this type exist on a different or irregular level of Cause and Effect, different to our own. This grants them resistances to abilities that rely on conventional cause and effect such as: Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, Precognition, and similar abilities. Any attempts of a person or ability that functions in a conventional casual system cannot traditionally harm the user as the attack will be bound within a system the user does not exist within. Beings stated to exist "outside" causality (with no further context) also fits this category."
Click to expand...
No
 
How about some people just admit they're running on head-canon? It's not like this site's stuff is all correct and logical.
 
What I was saying is that the people on this site run on headcanon in regards to some things, and that (what a shock) things aren't as logical and correct as people here think they are. Anyway, no more from me on this matter.
 
Yeah being independent of time shouldn’t be a qualification for type 5. There can be systems that don’t operate with time and instead operate off of something unknowable in the verse or if the verse explains what allows it.
 
Who says you have to be independent of time to qualify?

Which, you don't. Since casuality can even exist without a flow of time.
 
I said that because causality does NOT need time to function. That's why it can still work in timeless voids.

Time and causality are related, yes. But causality doesn't need time to work. So the argument on "you need to be independent of time to be Type 5" is irrelevant, since time doesn't exactly matter.
 
@Andytrenom

What is your opinion on this proposed rewording for Acausality Type 5?

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...
 
ShivaShakti said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you introduce something like non-linear time then you're really stretching what time is. It goes beyond time as the relativistic thing and instead defining it as being the direction of causality.

Anyways, I think we have plenty examples in fiction of timeless voids which still have a causality. Areas without time frequently still have a sense of "A happened due to B". In fact, anything that happens in a time stop still has cause and effect, but time has no factor in it.
The idea of causality being uniquely dependent on time just doesn't hold up in fiction.
 
This thread is pretty aids, but lets get down to business. I think my philosophy degree might come in handy for once. First, lets establish what causality actually is, and what the requirements are to say something is causally related. For this, I'm going to quote one of the textbooks from my philosophy of science class, Crane's The Mechanical Mind. There is a good amount of controversy on what exactly causality is, but there are three uncontroversial conditions for when one thing is said to cause another. On the off chance someone wants to look these up, these can be found on pages 55-57. Also feel free to skip the quotes if you just want a loose idea, I'm just citing my sources

First, when we say that A caused B, we normally commit ourselves to the idea that if A had not occurred, B would not have occurred. When we say, for example, that someone’s smoking caused their cancer, we normally believe that if they hadn’t smoked then they would not have got cancer. Philosophers put this by saying that causation involves counterfactuals: truths about matters ‘contrary to fact’. So we could say that, if we believe that A caused B, we commit ourselves to the truth of the counterfactual claim: ‘If A had not occurred, B would not have occurred’
Click to expand...
1) Counterfactuals: If X causes Y, then if X had not occurred, Y would not have occurred

Note, this requires change. this will be relevant later.

The second feature of causation I shall mention is the relation between causation and the idea of explanation. To explain something is to answer a ‘Why?’-question about it. To ask ‘Why did the First World War occur?’ and ‘Explain the origins of the First World War’ is to ask pretty much the same sort of thing. One way in which ‘Why?’ questions can be answered is by citing the cause of what you want explained. So, for example, an answer to the question ‘Why did he get cancer?’ could be ‘Because he smoked’; an answer to ‘Why was there a fi re?’ could be ‘Because there was a short-circuit’.
Click to expand...
2) Some explanatory power. If X causes Y, then X in someway explains occurrence Y. Although this element is not super important for this discussion

The final feature of causation I shall mention is the link between causation and regularities in the world. Like much in the contemporary theory of causation, the idea that cause and regularity are linked derives from Hume. Hume said that a cause is an ‘object followed by another, and where all the objects, similar to the first, are followed by objects similar to the second’... Maybe no two events are ever exactly similar; but all the claim requires is that two events similar in some specifi c respect will cause events similar in some specific respect. We certainly expect the world to be regular. When we throw a ball into the air, we expect it to fall to the ground, usually because we are used to things like that happening. And if we were to throw a ball into the air and it didn’t come down to the ground, we would normally conclude that something else intervened – that is, some other cause stopped the ball from falling to the ground. We expect similar causes to have similar effects. Causation seems to involve an element of regularity.
Click to expand...
(He goes on a bit more on different kinds of regularity but that's not relevant here)

3) Regularity/law: if X causes Y, then setting up some circumstance similar to X will regularly cause Y to follow.


If we take these as the qualifications for causality, I think one can safely say that time is not a necessity for things to be considered causally related, as none of the above require time (at least without begging the question of change, but we will get back to this). As stupid as this may be, let me go ahead and get a definition for time so I can be absolutely precise in what I mean. For this, I will be using the first one (both a and b). Given this definition of time, actions that occur with no measurable time frame (I'm not counting a period of 0 seconds as measurable) or a sequence of events occurring at the same 'present' are either outside or not participating in time. A continuum of events that do not succeed one another from past through present to future (in essence, occur only in the subjectively eternal 'present') would not technically fit the definition of time, but the conditions for causality could still be met. Both counterfactuals and condition X regularly leading to condition Y are possible for actions with no delay between their causes and effects. The Master from The Three Body problem is a good example of what this looks like, the entirety of its realm has no delay between an action starting and an action ending. There is an order of events and change, but no passage of time.

If one argues that time is necessary for any sort of change, regardless of reason, then you are begging the question. Change of some kind is necessary for the first condition of being causally related. If you flip this on its head, you could also have Time but having nothing within it meet to conditions for causality, such as an empty space with no temporal beginning or end.

I also fundamentally disagree with using how causality or time reportedly works in real life to make points in this discussion. Maybe in real life if we removed time nothing would happen and there would be no change, but we do not have things with infinite speed or things outside of time in real life. Time technically does not even need to be an axis or have an extant 'physical' past or future if one uses Galilean space time for relativity. There is also no clean line between cause and effect in "objective" reality, that's a separation our minds and language make to understand the world and events, but I won't rant on about this.



tl;dr I think both Kira and DT are wrong. Now onto the definition of Type 5

first "being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality" is redundant. You can just say that it cannot be changed by anything that relies on a system of causality

I think the biggest problem in this thread is how you could actually prove something is disconnected from any causal system. Raw feats of not being affected do not work because you just run into the NLF, so I think the best way is that feats or statements are necessary to prove that a given character has a quality that would entail type 5 acausality. IMO the best way for this is that a character needs to be beyond the concept of causality and/or change or in some sense Totally Immutable, or some in-verse equivalent. This of course still allows a character from another verse or 18 levels of reality higher to work by a higher concept of causality, as is standard for how we treat concepts on this wiki. I think it might just be best to just have type 5 acausality be this sort of conceptual separation/superiority or altered state of being since that is at least provable through feats, or at least as much as any sort of conceptual or ontological difference can be demonstrated through feats.
 
Last edited:
It is not like we trying to hardwired causality into time, but disregard time totally is a bad reason, it should be evaluated case by case
 
Vietthai96 said:
It is not like we trying to hardwired causality into time, but disregard time totally is a bad reason, it should be evaluated case by case
Click to expand...
I agree. Just like how most things in versus battles are contextual, this should be a case by case analyzation as there is hardly any uniformity within the realms of fiction.
 
Vietthai96 said:
It is not like we trying to hardwired causality into time, but disregard time totally is a bad reason, it should be evaluated case by case
Click to expand...
that is what it sounds like people are trying to do here, since acausality of this kind really only comes up in verses that make claims on causality and/or time
 
Last edited:
But that still doesn't solve the problem:
"How exactly do you prove they are disconnected from any causal system, without it contradicting itself?"

Type 5 is a breeding ground for anti-feats that automatically disprove it.

Now, time isn't disregarded completely, as time is needed for change to occur and events to be processed, but time isn't needed for causality to exist.

(I heard that time is an aspect of causality a few times actually, not the other way around)
 
I think the biggest problem in this thread is how you could actually prove something is disconnected from any causal system.

That's not what the proposed change to the definition is. It would just be proving something is disconnected from one causal system (and that disconnect causing the being to be impossible to ordinarily affect).
 
Vietthai96 said:
It is not like we trying to hardwired causality into time, but disregard time totally is a bad reason, it should be evaluated case by case
Click to expand...
Yeah i agree with that, if the the verse mention every extended point of time (past, present, future) then it should be with causality. But if not then no
 
Agnaa said:
I think the biggest problem in this thread is how you could actually prove something is disconnected from any causal system.

That's not what the proposed change to the definition is. It would just be proving something is disconnected from one causal system (and that disconnect causing the being to be impossible to ordinarily affect).
Click to expand...
right, I'm offering an alternative. Although in a verse one causal system and any causal system could be the same
 
Well then, I think your alternative is overly-restrictive.
 
Agnaa said:
Well then, I think your alternative is overly-restrictive.
Click to expand...
I mean, I suppose thats one way of looking at it. But I think that for something as busted as Type 5 acausality you need extreme evidence to justify the extreme claim. Its also heavily feat based in a way that may justify such an ability
 
I think all the evidence you need for something as busted as "You need to be able to affect beings outside of normal causality to directly harm this character" is "The character is stated to be outside of normal causality and is consistently shown to be unable to be harmed because of that".
 
Outside normal causality would be type 4, if I'm not mistaken. Being beyond causality period is another matter, which is what I was more discussing. To be honest if a being just works outside your normal causal system that just sounds like you would need some particularly spicy causality manip to bypass
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deagonx
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much For Too Little (2)
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Eseseso
  • Locked
Revisions for Acausality Types 1 & 4
Replies
29
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Grabbing_dragon
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Elyartaker
Acausality Type 5
Replies
8
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
74
Views
12K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top