Type 5 Acausality Rewording

[Everything12]

I have noticed for some time now that people seem to have issues understanding Type 5 Acausality and the requirements for acquiring it, with multiple people citing that the Acausality page itself is unclear and sometimes even seemingly contradicted by staff in their judgements. So based off my knowledge of what Acausality Type 5 is and what people seem to not understand about it I propose this change to the wording of the Acausality Type 5 section of the Acausality page.

Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside all systems of causality. Even interacting with them normally is virtually impossible, as any effect that enacts change that relies on a system of causality does not affect them.

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.

This rewording is just based off my understanding of Acausality Type 5 and the issues around it, so their may be things that need to be added or changed.

Edit: After conversations in this thread I have adjusted the rewording to this currently:

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.

 

[Antvasima]

@Elizhaa @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @DontTalkDT @KingPin0422 @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know enough about Acausality to contribute.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is unfortunate, but no problem.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Doesn't the current definition only demand a system of causality being transcendent, not all of them?
On the other hand, should we keep the "interacting with them normally is virtually impossible"-part? After all if one can normally interact with them in some way, should they still be Type 5?
And would you say that "any effect that enacts change that relies on a system of causality does not affect them" is a necessary requirement that needs to be proven beyond just being independent of cause and effect? 'cause i think it sounds like a good idea to do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Everything12]

Isn’t that just Acausality Type 4, being outside of a certain system of causality but none all of them. Pretty much every time I've seen staff weigh in on Acausality Type 5 its been made clear that they are outside all systems and not just some of them, with anti-feats towards them being effected by causality being a major point towards certain verses being denied Acausality Type 5.

The current definition being what it is, is one of the issues users have pointed out as a problem with the current definition.

I thought the virtually part was to do with people who can interact with Acausality Type 5 being able to interact with them, but I guess that isn't "normal". So yeah, it should probably be removed thinking on it.

In a way it is sort of requirement, with anti-feats that goes against it being a major reason staff don't give certain series Acausality Type 5. But as being uneffected by anything that functions on causality is a major part of what Acausality Type 5 is, it should be an actual requirement.

Thankfully, most characters with Acausality Type 5 I known are god-tiers of their series that are beyond normal methods of interaction anyway so it's not that major a change.

 

[Confluctor]

I agree with the changes

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Not staff member, but the current definition for Type 4 Ascausality is this:

Acausality

Acausality is the ability to act unrestrained by conventional cause and effect, on a scale that varies depending on the character. For some characters, this means not being affected by changes to the past; for others, this means defying all logic and acting with disregard for traditional...

vsbattles.fandom.com

“Type 4: Irregular Causality: Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This grants them resistance to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, and Precognition, among others.”

 

[DontTalkDT]

Isn’t that just Acausality Type 4, being outside of a certain system of causality but none all of them. Pretty much every time I've seen staff weigh in on Acausality Type 5 its been made clear that they are outside all systems and not just some of them, with anti-feats towards them being effected by causality being a major point towards certain verses being denied Acausality Type 5.

Idk how type 5 is treated currently tbh. Needless to say, being beyond the causal system of something 15000 reality-fiction layers above you is a big ask as well.

Type 4 is more existing in a causal system that works differently, but then I guess one can argue that if you are beyond some causal system you technically are in one functioning differently...

I thought the virtually part was to do with people who can interact with Acausality Type 5 being able to interact with them, but I guess that isn't "normal". So yeah, it should probably be removed thinking on it.

Yeah, if that's just to cover people having NPI on Acasuality Type 5 it probably can go.

In a way it is sort of requirement, with anti-feats that goes against it being a major reason staff don't give certain series Acausality Type 5. But as being uneffected by anything that functions on causality is a major part of what Acausality Type 5 is, it should be an actual requirement.

Thankfully, most characters with Acausality Type 5 I known are god-tiers of their series that are beyond normal methods of interaction anyway so it's not that major a change.

Mhhh... then it should probably be made more clear in the description that this is a requirement that needs to be demonstrated.

 

[Everything12]

Idk how type 5 is treated currently tbh. Needless to say, being beyond the causal system of something 15000 reality-fiction layers above you is a big ask as well.

That is how it's treated currently, even if your from a series that maxes out at 2-A not even a character with 1-A potency will be able to affect you without feats of affecting Acausality Type 5.

Mhhh... then it should probably be made more clear in the description that this is a requirement that needs to be demonstrated.

Perhaps something like:

This causes these characters to be unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning even interacting with them normally is impossible.

 

[ShivaShakti]

I disagree with the proposed alterations. Causality is an aspect of time. It does not simply suggest time, it requires it. Cause and Effect are chronological events in a linear continuum, thus a being without time would be unbound by cause an effect. We shouldn't arbitrarily separate causality from time.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That is how it's treated currently, even if your from a series that maxes out at 2-A not even a character with 1-A potency will be able to affect you without feats of affecting Acausality Type 5.

Specifically needing feats seems weird to me. Like, if the character just attacks with 1-A brute force that makes sense, I suppose. (Given, if their reality is shredded they made get incapped) But less for plot or concept manip or other abstract powers of far greater scale. At least unless the characters have specific showings regarding those. And reality-fiction layers basically makes plot always relevant.

Perhaps something like:

Thought more in the direction of:

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 have to be stated to be unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally has to be 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.

 

[Udlmaster]

I have noticed for some time now that people seem to have issues understanding Type 5 Acausality and the requirements for acquiring it, with multiple people citing that the Acausality page itself is unclear and sometimes even seemingly contradicted by staff in their judgements. So based off my knowledge of what Acausality Type 5 is and what people seem to not understand about it I propose this change to the wording of the Acausality Type 5 section of the Acausality page.



This rewording is just based off my understanding of Acausality Type 5 and the issues around it, so their may be things that need to be added or changed.

Like what I said before on Discord:

There are analogues of concepts that exist beyond their extensions, for example, many entities in fiction which are "Beyond time and space" usually involve themselves the greatest amount in causality (See the Beyonder).

Acausality is very different, as really is a specific physiology onto itself, distinct from existing independent of time, as most often portrayed in fiction.

 

[Everything12]

Specifically needing feats seems weird to me. Like, if the character just attacks with 1-A brute force that makes sense, I suppose. (Given, if their reality is shredded they made get incapped) But less for plot or concept manip or other abstract powers of far greater scale. At least unless the characters have specific showings regarding those. And reality-fiction layers basically makes plot always relevant.

I believe that's probably a case of the tiering system focusing more on higher infinities though more scientific means then reality-ficiton one's. Though this is assumption and I could be wrong, then I personally have no clue where this logic particularly comes from.

Well they don't just have to be stated, feats of being unaffected would work as well as long as their were some type of statement related to being outside causality and a lack of anti-feats.

So more like

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 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.

@Udlmaster
The distinction between causality and time is also something that users have struggled to understand in the past, and also something I hope to make easier to understand with this rewording.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

disagree with the proposed alterations. Causality is an aspect of time. It does not simply suggest time, it requires it. Cause and Effect are chronological events in a linear continuum, thus a being without time would be unbound by cause an effect. We shouldn't arbitrarily separate causality from time.

Wordiness aside, this generally sums up my stance on this. I don't see much of a need for these revisions, so far, nor any logic behind them.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Wordiness aside, this generally sums up my stance on this. I don't see much of a need for these revisions, so far, nor any logic behind them.

Tbf, one can technically argue time is a aspect of causality as there are articles regarding how it is being treated and IIRC causality being consider a concept independent of time is not that illogical anyway

Edit:

Causality (physics) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Everything12]

That isn't really how the Wiki treats it, with time and causality being treated as distinct thing with being outside time not being evidence of existing outside causality.

The logic probably comes from that fact that theirs many a being in fiction who either exist outside time or act in a place outside of time but still experience some form of change and can be affected by the likes of causality manipulation. So whether the logic that causality and time aren't necessarily connected applies to the real world, it is a logic that isn't too uncommon among fiction.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well they don't just have to be stated, feats of being unaffected would work as well as long as their were some type of statement related to being outside causality and a lack of anti-feats.

Can a feat show that, though? If a character is attacked and unaffacted by that, we wouldn't know why or if the same happens for all other ways. I can't imagine how a feat can prove it without a statement.

Well, I suppose just saying evidence work in any case. Although I prefer "need to have", i.e.

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.

 

[Everything12]

Can a feat show that, though? If a character is attacked and unaffacted by that, we wouldn't know why or if the same happens for all other ways. I can't imagine how a feat can prove it without a statement.

Well, I suppose just saying evidence work in any case. Although I prefer "need to have", i.e.

Like I say, if we have additional context before or after that they are outside causality and then we see feats of them being unaffected by others. Then we can naturally assume what is going on without a direct statement of being untouchable because of acausality. But, yeah. That looks fine.

Though I prefer requires to need to have, for no particular reason besides thinking it sounds better.

 

[Jinsye]

I disagree with the proposed alterations. Causality is an aspect of time. It does not simply suggest time, it requires it. Cause and Effect are chronological events in a linear continuum, thus a being without time would be unbound by cause an effect. We shouldn't arbitrarily separate causality from time.

As far as it goes, I agree with this.

The wiki has never treated causality and time as separate conceptions. The only reason we're so strict on type 5 acausality is due to the fact that it's a very powerful ability.

The reason why we default to type 4 for beyond time statements is due to the fact that it's a lowball and we assume that the character functions on a different form of time. We'd do the same for normal beyond causality statements without further context.

Time and causality are not separate, and if we treat them as such then that's a problem.

 

[Everything12]

I understand that, which is why the note is:

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality (Acausality Type 5) without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for a irregular relationship with causality (Acausality Type 4) otherwise.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know enough about Acausality to contribute.

I ended up seeing enough people talk about it which revealed how dead simple this conversation is; it's just a repeat of Irrelevant speed, but for defensive purposes.

I hold the same view I did there, but slightly changed for these circumstances. Type 5 Acausality in its current state, or anything similar, should not exist. A character being above all causality is either contradicted the second they become relevant in the story, or an extremely bad case of NLF.

If a new rating were to come about in its ashes, I would prefer it be something like "Characters with this type of Acausality are independent of a system of cause and effect, to the point of being unaffected by anything within that system of causality."

 

[Everything12]

That is something we are suggesting adding as a requirement:

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 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.

If your talking about the whole issue of Acausality ignoring higher infinities, you won't hear me voicing any options contrary to you.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah but the wording still implies that such characters are completely independent and exist outside of all systems of causality, which as I say, would quickly be contradicted, or just be flat-out NLF. You think some random Low 1-C character exists outside of beyond-axiomatic-causality?

 

[Everything12]

Liek I added to my post, the whole thing about Acausality Type 5 ignoring the superiority of higher infinities is something I don't agree with myself, and not sure where it comes from.

Honestly, such a level of NLF shouldn't even need to be added to a description, it should just be common sense. Beats me how it came about.

 

[Agnaa]

Even if we agree to in practice not treat it that way, it still rubs me the wrong way to use wording that implies that, when you could just as easily change the definition to only be above one system of causality.

 

[Everything12]

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.

And perhaps a note to the effect of:

Note: 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.

 

[Jinsye]

Note: Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality (Acausality Type 5) without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for a irregular relationship with causality (Acausality Type 4) otherwise.

I still disagree with this note for the same reason as before, because logically we have no reason to assume causality and time are different besides restrictive gatekeeping.

Personally, we'd go on a simple feat basis.

Can the character not be interacted with normally due to their existence beyond time? If characters can interact with them, is it treated as an irregularity? If true, then they are acausal type 5.

If they are regularly interacted with, then they just simply function on a different system of time. So they have type 4 acausality. There is no need for verses to specifically spell out causality being linked to time for it to work. It keeps it hard to reach but also doesn't ignore basic principals of time and causality.

 

[Agnaa]

If they are regularly interacted with, then they just simply function on a different system of time. So they have type 4 acausality

Are you suggesting that every character who has a statement of being beyond time should at least have type 4 acausality?

 

[Greatsage13th]

Are you suggesting that every character who has a statement of being beyond time should at least have type 4 acausality?

That's very different from what they said.

 

[Agnaa]

Saying "A character who is beyond time and can't be interacted with should get Type 5 Acausality, characters who can be interacted with should get Type 4 Acausality" implies that the only requirement for Type 4 Acausality is being beyond time, as that is the only remaining requirement.

A and B gives ability X. Without B they get the ability Y. Implies that A gives the ability Y.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Isn't being beyond time different from being on a different system of time?

 

[Agnaa]

Almost no characters are consistently beyond time in its entirety.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Almost no characters are consistently beyond time in its entirety.

Same with causality.

 

[Jinsye]

Are you suggesting that every character who has a statement of being beyond time should at least have type 4 acausality?

If the context shows that they are beyond time in the sense where time-based abilities or whatnot don't work on them, then it should be fine. Obviously we wouldn't slap it on somebody who has no context behind it but it'd just make sense.

So if there is a statement of being beyond time, and they're demonstrably beyond time too, they should get type 4 acausality. Same for type 5 but just add in the uninteractible part.

 

[Vietthai96]

i don't think just being uninteractible is enough for type 5, since the is multiple types of uninteractible, or people gonna go sematic arguing path to get the power

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I still disagree with this note for the same reason as before, because logically we have no reason to assume causality and time are different besides restrictive gatekeeping.

Personally, we'd go on a simple feat basis.

Can the character not be interacted with normally due to their existence beyond time? If characters can interact with them, is it treated as an irregularity? If true, then they are acausal type 5.

If they are regularly interacted with, then they just simply function on a different system of time. So they have type 4 acausality. There is no need for verses to specifically spell out causality being linked to time for it to work. It keeps it hard to reach but also doesn't ignore basic principals of time and causality.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2449.pdf
There are some pages that mentioned this distinction in some ways.

Granger causality - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[HammerStrikes219]

There is also this page which directly has this question regarding whatever or not time and causality is treated simply distinct from one another and the answers is kinda complicated.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31258/does-causality-always-require-time

 

[Mr._Undetected]

Is this even a Staff Discussion thread?

Sorry for comment btw