Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
This is the part @DontTalkDT should comment on since that’s pretty much the main reason for this thread to begin with.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.
Some verses elaborate on why they can interchangeably react.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.
Just assume that their powers allows them to interact with these beings..
...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.
"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.Just assume that their powers allows them to interact with these beings.
That sounds paradoxical."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.
Agreed.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.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.
Hey what do you think about thisThe 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.
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
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 0NEP 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
It will have same reason as NEP 1 and 2And 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.
Facts.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.
I read thisDuality 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.
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.
I mean causality in whatever level cant reach aca 5 being like NEP 1 to NEP 2You'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?
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 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
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
Not nonexitance at conceptual level, but beyond nonexistance it self in conceptual levelNonexistence 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."
DT wasn't saying being "beyond nonexistence itself is a conceptual level", rather DT was asking a question on why it was believed.Not nonexitance at conceptual level, but beyond nonexistance it self in conceptual level
So where i can find explanation about duality in general???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.
Doesn't it mean "every extanded of duality system it self" so it can only have by 1A character2. The Transduality page explicitly says that that's wrong.
I think you have to read again3. DT's post says the opposite; he says that conceptual nonexistence isn't enough.
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.
DT says the nonexistance it self must erased in conceptuallyDT 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.