• 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.
Yeah that's the idea. Being "beyond all causality" is mega NLF. So the difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is that Type 4 demonstrates no immunity to attacks (and so gets a few resistances), while Type 5 does (and so requires special attacks to be harmed at all).
 
I mean being beyond the concept of causality and/or change (as Andy said) seems to demonstrate that just fine while not being an NLF as its not a claim against a higher concept or order of causality functioning akin to Umineko or SCP. Going with the claim that someone who is beyond the concept of change or causality functions just exists outside "normal" causality, by their own system, sounds like we are just overtly denying what is explicitly stated in verse. That sort of fails our purpose as an indexing wiki

However, if we go with that, what would someone who works by an alternate system of causality that renders them hard to effect but not beyond causality period be? As in, they do still explicitly follow their own irregular causality
 
Being conceptually above causality does not put you above tier 0 causality.

All causality means "all causality". If you're saying "They're above some but not all causality" then they are not above all causality. Bringing up concepts does not help that case, since we do not consider concepts the be-all and end-all.

However, if we go with that, what would someone who works by an alternate system of causality that renders them hard to effect but not beyond causality period be? As in, they do still explicitly follow their own irregular causality

Type 5.
 
Yeah obviously being beyond the concept of change does not put you above tier 0 causality, that's the point of what I'm saying. Obviously a tier 0 works by a higher concept of causality, that doesn't matter if they transcend the concept of causality in their own verse. The point of bring up concepts is exactly that we can both not just explicitly deny in verse facts, thus fulfilling the purpose as an indexing wiki, and still not wank characters using NLF as those of a higher state could still effect them. It's the best of both worlds

My apologies if I phrased my comment so poorly it sounded like I was saying a 5-B beyond the concept of causality could no sell a tier 0. That's not what I meant at all



That just makes type 4 Acausality redundant then, and makes the types not based on their nature but on their applications. This stands in contrast to the other forms of Acausality on the page. You might as well just keep type 4 its own thing and split type 5 into types 5 and 6. Or if you want feat requirements for certain applications than just allow that like we already do for type 4. Type 4 offers wildly different applications for the different characters that have it; El reverso's inverted causality makes him hard to properly damage (at least that isn't undone) where as discword has intangibility via type 4 Acausality, and the demons of fallen London experience events out of order without time travel. That may be the best option for type 5
 
Last edited:
"I'm outside Causality"

"I'm outside the law of causality"

"I'm outside the concept of causality"

Why is causality being a concept going to take priority over the others if all 3 fulfill the requirements of being unable to be interacted with?
 
Yemma670 said:
"I'm outside Causality"

"I'm outside the law of causality"

"I'm outside the concept of causality"

Why is causality being a concept going to take priority over the others if all 3 fulfill the requirements of being unable to be interacted with?
Click to expand...
The first one is too vague, that could be almost any type. The latter two sound about the same with the proper verse context putting them in the same light, so I don't see any issue with it hypothetically being the same type, if I understand what you are asking right. I don't see much difference between something like an ontological "law" and a concept in this discussion specifically
 
This is why I said Type 5 isn't really needed-

Also, I agree. Stop treating a "law/concept" as being above everything else as default, as it can just be overexggerated in a statement.

Which overexggerating concepts actually happens WAY more often than you may think. Hell, some people even use "concept" in daily life as a metaphor, further proving my point why it shouldn't be used.
 
Agnaa said:
Yeah that's the idea. Being "beyond all causality" is mega NLF. So the difference between Type 4 and Type 5 is that Type 4 demonstrates no immunity to attacks (and so gets a few resistances), while Type 5 does (and so requires special attacks to be harmed at all).
Click to expand...

Also, once again.

That's effectively just making Type 5 "Type 4, but hard to hit", which is that really enough to warrant an ENTIRE Type all to itself even though Type 4 alone can have several ways to be "immune to attacks"? Such as reordering causality.

Answer me this: How, in the actual hell, do you "harm" something that precedes cause? The effect of "they already dodged" will always take place before they "move".

How do you dodge something that creates effects first? They LITERALLY land the hit, before even making it in the first place via sheer "order of events". Also, range wouldn't matter, as again: "the already land the attack, before making it". They don't NEED range, if they already succeeded.

Which is why, sometimes, Type 4 can actually MIMIC Immeasurable combat speed in some cases, while not actually moving that fast as all this is accomplished via order of events, not via sheer speed.
 
Last edited:
Vietthai96 said:
Again, i must repeat, we should stop default treating concept/law as something automatically above everything that somehow don't have the word concept/law in them, like they are some kind of magical word
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you know damn well I am not talking about the "concept" or "law" of causality in the hypothetical context of a damn throw away line. There is nothing "automatic" here. as I ******* said in my comment above I'm assuming there is further verse context for the latter two. This isn't Nasu arbitrarily throwing concept in front of every noble Phantasm. I even previously explicitly mentioned total immutability as a comparable state that has nothing to do with concepts or law. If you can cut down on your pretentiousness for two seconds, you will note that my problem with the first was vagueness, not lacking some magic cosmological buzzword. In the current system there are non-type 5s that have Acausality that makes them hard to effect.
 
Last edited:
Iapitus_The_Impaler said:
This isn't Nasu arbitrarily throwing concept in front of every noble Phantasm.
Click to expand...

You see people, this is what I mean by concepts/laws shouldn't be used to describe things as "above the normal", as they often are.

There are limits to how high a concept can reach, and "being above the concept of something", could just mean it's simply beyond the norm; in the case of acausality, this would still be just Type 4 as it is simply above/outside the norm by literal description of it. You CANNOT simply know how high a concept goes, without actual examples or descriptions detailing how high it goes.
 
Furudo_Erika said:
Also, once again.

That's effectively just making Type 5 "Type 4, but hard to hit", which is that really enough to warrant an ENTIRE Type all to itself even though Type 4 alone can have several ways to be "immune to attacks"? Such as reordering causality.

Answer me this: How, in the actual hell, do you "harm" something that precedes cause?

How do you dodge something that creates effects first? They LITERALLY land the hit, before even making it in the first place via sheer "order of events". Also, range wouldn't matter, as again: "the already land the attack, before making it". They don't NEED range, if they already succeeded.
Click to expand...
So, causality manipulation then?

This has nothing to with with type 5. The things you mentioned is manipulatation of causality, of which type 5 is outside of
 
Yemma670 said:
So, causality manipulation then?

This has nothing to with with type 5. The things you mentioned is manipulatation of causality, of which type 5 is outside of
Click to expand...

No, it isn't causality manipulation as this is a literal part of their physiology.

And using causality manipulation to affect them wouldn't work, via the same reason "via order of events". They precede the literal cause of you even doing so in the first place, making them able to get out of it before you even use it...if not killing you already as they don't need to make an attack, as they already succeeded in making them.
 
Erika [not in response to your most recent comment, the one before that] I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Either way, while yeah concept does not need to go all the way to the top, I don't think conceptual is just the "double plus good" of something. I also fundamentally disagree that this is the same as having an irregular causal system, unless the verse has other information that implies counter to what is literally stated. Not participating in causality is fundamentally different than just working by your own system of causality. Though, they can be used for similar abilities
 
Furudo_Erika said:
No, it isn't causality manipulation as this is a literal part of their physiology.

And using causality manipulation to affect them wouldn't work, via the same reason "via order of events". They precede the literal cause of you even doing so in the first place, making them able to get out of it before you even use it...if not killing you already as they don't need to make an attack, as they already succeeded in making them.
Click to expand...
They don't exist beyond the causality system. Their nature rearranges how causality should be

This would be bypassed by a potent type 4 due to its irregularity
 
As I've already said, we could merge Type 4 and Type 5 Acausality, but that would end up with the slight weirdness of random-ass vague statements about coming from a place with "weird causality" that confers no abilities in-verse is put on the same level as a character who has different causality which makes them impossible to interact with.

Still, that is a thing that could happen.

I don't find the prospect of splitting "a character that shows limited or no showings of invulnerability because of their nature" and "a character that shows complete invulnerability because of their nature" into different types as something that goes against the sanctity of the typing system. Many levels of regen are separated by potency, even if they have the same underlying mechanism.

Not participating in causality is fundamentally different than just working by your own system of causality

I disagree. Most characters who "don't participate in causality" actually do (i.e. because they either do things, or have things done to them). In which case they're just working by their own higher system of causality.

If you want to consider all characters who do things or have things done to them to actually participate in causality, then any type of "doesn't participate in causality" would be limited to about 3 characters.
 
Yemma670 said:
They don't exists beyond the causality system because they're messing with causality

This would be bypassed by a potent type 4 due to its irregularity
Click to expand...

Oh my god-

I NEVER SAID THEY EXIST BEYOND IT. I said, DUE TO THE PHYSIOLOGY, cause and effect are literally reversed.

Another Type 4 potent enough can bypass it, but how about one on the same level? Let ALONE someone without Acausality of any type.

That breaks apart of the argument and logic of "Type 4s can still be interacted with normally", as they cannot due to LITERAL DIFFERENT CAUSAL SYSTEMS THEY OPERATE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
 
Iapitus_The_Impaler said:
Erika [not in response to your most recent comment, the one before that] I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Either way, while yeah concept does not need to go all the way to the top, I don't think conceptual is just the "double plus good" of something. I also fundamentally disagree that this is the same as having an irregular causal system, unless the verse has other information that implies counter to what is literally stated. Not participating in causality is fundamentally different than just working by your own system of causality. Though, they can be used for similar abilities
Click to expand...

Neither, I'm just making my own statements.
You do put up some good points though.
 
Anyway, what is the consensus so far???. Type 4 is fine as of now, i don't think we need to drastically change it, sure it is not perfect (nothing is perfect either), or if we still not sure about it, add more description???. Since i remember some people trying to upgrade their characters to Type 4 because of some context like said character living in the realm with different law or rule, system despite said law, rule or system is really vague and not always mean causality. Or it is too strict???
 
Agnaa said:
I don't find the prospect of splitting "a character that shows limited or no showings of invulnerability because of their nature" and "a character that shows complete invulnerability because of their nature" into different types as something that goes against the sanctity of the typing system. Many levels of regen are separated by potency, even if they have the same underlying mechanism.
Click to expand...
The thing is, that's just not how we have the acausality page set up: We don't have them organized according to potency like regen, we have them organized according to nature. the regen page makes no claim of how the character comes back, or even how long it takes, only what level of damage they can come back from. The other problem is that there are characters with "just" a really irregular causality that makes them really hard to effect, and there are characters that claim to be beyond causality that has not demonstrated invulnerability. Its perfectly possible to have a more combat applicable type 4 than a type 5 relative to one's level of existence

Agnaa said:
I disagree. Most characters who "don't participate in causality" actually do (i.e. because they either do things, or have things done to them). In which case they're just working by their own higher system of causality.

If you want to consider all characters who do things or have things done to them to actually participate in causality, then any type of "doesn't participate in causality" would be limited to about 3 characters.
Click to expand...
A character doing something or changing something else does not mean they are bound by causality. "Participate" was a poor choice of words, but I meant it in the other sense, as in one who partakes of a concept, not one who is merely involved or associated. The whole archetype of The Unmoved Mover is very common in fiction (and religion), where an entity who is above or beyond causality sets a system in motion. This is to be expected, as every causal chain must have a beginning, and its hard to pull a first cause out of your ass otherwise lol

I actually would not consider all characters who do things or have things done to them to participate in causality tbh. That's too loose a notion of causality. Also, its clear from the first element of causation that a being would have to be bound by change to be bound by causality, but I'm not too sure that simply because a character undergoes change that implicitly undermines their reported type 5.
 
Last edited:
A character doing something or changing something else does not mean they are bound by causality.

Yes it does.

The whole archetype of The Unmoved Mover is very common in fiction (and religion), where an entity who is above or beyond causality sets a system in motion.

If their only action as the prime mover is creating everything, than we can just model them as being coeternal with creation. There was never a state of existence where there was not both the prime mover and creation, and that one state is the only state, there were no further changes needed since the prime mover succeeded on their first try.

If they do further things, then they are, in fact, bound by causality.

I actually would not consider all characters who do things or have things done to them to participate in causality tbh. That's too loose a notion of causality.

What's your stricter notion of causality that does not include all characters who drive causes or receive effects?

but I'm not too sure that simply because a character undergoes change that implicitly undermines their reported type 5.

I'm sure that it does.
 
"Characters who drive causes and receive effects. If they do further things, they are bound by causality."

Type 5 mfs who do both: "I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that shit."

Ah, the logic of this wiki sometimes-
 
Last edited:
To be fair, all characters, no matter what, they are bound to be moved by plot, if the author want them do thing, they must do thing, at that point, acausality will be throw out of the window. The only solution i can think of is, limit the NLF of Type 5, which mean like an author who can still make Acausality type 5 characters move, character that are higher-dimensional than type 5 character can interact with type 5 to a degree, just make type 5 fully immune to hax like causal and fate hax, similar to what we did with BDE type 2??
 
A story about characters that are truly beyond causality would suck, yes.

The stuff you're suggesting about not treating it as NLF has already been proposed and widely agreed upon.

But I still wouldn't say fully immune to fate/causal hax.
 
Vietthai96 said:
To be fair, all characters, no matter what, they are bound to be moved by plot, if the author want them do thing, they must do thing, at that point, acausality will be throw out of the window.
Click to expand...
No? Because the author can also say their character exists beyond Causality
How about unmoved Movers in fiction?

What the authors do don't really count. They're not characters within the story
 
A higher-dimensional being would imply they exist on a higher order than a Type 5.

What if said Type 5 is stated to "exist beyond causality", thus "FULLY immune to causal and fate hax", but said "higher-dimensional being" are still able to invoke causal effects on them? Would that be an anti-feat, contradiction? You know, like 90% of the stuff in Type 5?

(Also: Fate is more inclined to time, not causality, as "fate" is basically just predetermined destiny (Yes, they are sometimes used interchangeably, but destiny is different from fate by definition))
 
Agnaa said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...
alright, lets start from the basics then. If a character creates causality as an 'action' (or causality on the most fundamental level is an emanation of them), does that mean they are bound by causality to you?
Agnaa said:
If their only action as the prime mover is creating everything, than we can just model them as being coeternal with creation. There was never a state of existence where there was not both the prime mover and creation, and that one state is the only state, there were no further changes needed since the prime mover succeeded on their first try.

If they do further things, then they are, in fact, bound by causality.
Click to expand...
What would be the implications for you of them being coeternal with creation? That does, though, assume that creation is eternal, which it need not be for an unmoved mover to exist.
Agnaa said:
What's your stricter notion of causality that does not include all characters who drive causes or receive effects?
Click to expand...
I laid out the three conditions for causal relation in my earlier comment regarding the disagreement between Kira and DT. "doing things" is also not the same as driving causes or receiving effects in fiction. You can see the longer explanation and quotes/sources up in the thread
  1. Counterfactuals. If X causes Y, that means that if X had not happened then Y would not have happened.
  2. Explanatory power. If X causes Y, X explains the occurrence Y
  3. Regularity/law. If X causes Y, then setting up circumstances [similar to] X regularly has Y follow.
Agnaa said:
but I'm not too sure that simply because a character undergoes change that implicitly undermines their reported type 5.

I'm sure that it does.
Click to expand...
Change is only an element necessary to fulfill the 1st condition for causation, there is more to it than that. I suspect this conversation might get semantic and technical as hell, so I apologize ahead of time lol. Let's see what I can come up with

The only real way I can think of to cut through the first condition and have something still by type 5 while in some way changing would be if it underwent a "process" that was pre-ordained (for lack of a better term) and/or innate to its nature. Azathoth waking up would be this, but that's really the only example of a 'change' in a type 5 that does not fit the first condition for causation off the top of my head.

I have a potential example or two that cut through the second condition despite arguably changing, but I will have to brush up on some of the details of [ ] and their 'incarnation' before I formally lay that out. So I guess wait on that one kek. Edit: Actually, I just realized I guess narrative causality or the will of the author would technically cut through this one as well lol, but that's a bit of a meme answer

I'm going to go deeply reread the section of my textbook where they discuss the kinds of Regularity because I suspect that if there is a clean way to precisely lay out Type 5 beings changing without being bound by causality, the third would be the most reliable and common.
 
Yemma670 said:
No? Because the author can also say their character exists beyond Causality
How about unmoved Movers in fiction?

What the authors do don't really count. They're not characters within the story
Click to expand...
We have many reality > fiction cosmology verse, and many characters posed as an author of the dimension below them, it is just an analogy
 
Actually, yeah. Azathoth can disprove its own Type 5 in a sense.

Azathoth wakes up (cause), so the world is destroyed (effect). Boom, cause and effect right there. Still bound by a causal system.
 
We also need to reword Type 4 acausality. All that's needed is the following:
Type 4 acausality: existing outside of/beyond regular causality (or working under a different causality) -> immunity to things performed under regular causality. Cannot be interacted with unless it's a similar being/feats.
Type 5 acausality: existing outside all levels of/various types of causality -> way harder to interacted with. Also, since higher dimensions are a thing here, type 5 acausality will be relegated to tier 1a and up. Everything else is simply above baseline type 4.
 
Last edited:
alright, lets start from the basics then. If a character creates causality as an 'action' (or causality on the most fundamental level is an emanation of them), does that mean they are bound by causality to you?

Unless they're coeternal with it, yes, they're bound by a higher form of causality.

What would be the implications for you of them being coeternal with creation? That does, though, assume that creation is eternal, which it need not be for an unmoved mover to exist.

Not much, by itself.

I laid out the three conditions for causal relation in my earlier comment regarding the disagreement between Kira and DT.

Ahh right, those.

I think all of those hold for the case of a prime mover.

Change is only an element necessary to fulfill the 1st condition for causation, there is more to it than that.

I disagree. I don't think something could meet 2, not meet 1, and still meet 2. I don't think 3 could be set up without 1 holding true.

The only real way I can think of to cut through the first condition and have something still by type 5 while in some way changing would be if it underwent a "process" that was pre-ordained (for lack of a better term) and/or innate to its nature. Azathoth waking up would be this, but that's really the only example of a 'change' in a type 5 that does not fit the first condition for causation off the top of my head.

I don't understand, if a change is part of something's nature, then that thing cannot be beyond causality, as it is bound to interface with cause and effect.

What do you think that we should do here based on the preceding discussion?

Nothing, I think we should just continue with the agreed-upon wording in the OP.

All that's needed is the following:
Type 4 acausality: existing outside of/beyond regular causality (or working under a different causality) -> immunity to things performed under regular causality. Cannot be interacted with unless it's a similar being/feats.
Type 5 acausality: existing outside all levels of/various types of causality -> way harder to interacted with. Also, since higher dimensions are a thing here, type 5 acausality will be relegated to tier 1a and up. Everything else is simply above baseline type 4.

This seems silly. Type 5 is either just another layer above Type 4, or an unprovable NLF nightmare. I also see no reason to relegate the latter in your proposal to 1-A and above.
 
Okay. After checking it looks good to me as well.

What did Agnaa and other staff members here think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
71
Views
9K
Planck69
Planck69
Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
773
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CNBA3
CNBA3
RaveeCPN
  • Locked
Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality
3 4 5
Replies
178
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Bill Cipher Acausality Revision
Replies
9
Views
2K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Back
Top