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.
Nope, I disagree with this. Type 4 is still under “causality as a whole”. They just operate different system.I disagree.
Being beyond "causality as a whole" is an NLF. If we don't NLF it, it's exactly the same as type 4. That's why we had a revision to change the definition in the first place.
He was afk I think for a whole week after he rejects every character. Unsure@Everything12 has been pinged already but not responded, but I could try again.
He brought them, and they got rejected in that said thread. If you don't mind, check the thread work made by staff.I didn't. But in this thread, Ultima brought up multiple examples that seem to qualify, and DaReaperMan/Blackcurrant brought up an example that may qualify under a "possibly". So the idea that no characters can qualify seems false.
However, the characters that seemed like they got of a lot of discussion still seem to not qualify.
Nope, I disagree with this. Type 4 is still under “causality as a whole”. They just operate different system.
Type 5 is not beyond all forms of causality. We reworded the definition to remove that implication.
You cannot prove that a character is beyond all forms of causality, and so there's no reason to exclude a character from being in type 4.
It literally says this: “Existing outside causality.”Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality
I meant the characters are already brought in that said thread (by other members), and it got rejected.He brought them, and they got rejected in that said thread. If you don't mind, check the thread work made by staff.
?????
Ultima never commented in that thread.
IMAO (so we are same )It literally says this
I preferred a different wording that made what I say more explicit, but other people disagreed and thought that the wording you see is enough. They're clearly wrong, but blame them for thinking that their wording was sufficient.
Alright, seems reasonable but again, what he provides should be discussed deeply in that thread within other verse supporters.I meant the characters are already brought in that said thread (by other members), and it got rejected.
Rejected for having no justification and for having no-one present it. That does not mean that the justification that Ultima eventually provided is invalid.
Alright. I was only commenting on the fact that you did not see the thread. That's all.I also found it interesting that no one looked up the linked thread, even tho it is the main purpose of this thread.
The point is "No-one qualifies for it". Ultima presented characters who qualify, and multiple people who worked on the standards agree that they do. Whatever the old thread said is irrelevant, as this decision has more discussion behind it.
I am referring to the first sentence of acc type 5.Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality.
I will write it in my OP thread. Thanks for your suggestion. I was confused among all the other members who discussed this in that thread.I suggested something along the lines of "Characters with this type of Acausality are independent of a system of cause and effect. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on the system(s) of causality they're independent from, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible."
I would still be happy for it to be changed to that.
So has anything happened on this front yet?Thank you all for helping out. Can you try to reach an agreement regarding if and how our current Acausality Type 5 definitions need to be better clarified in order to avoid further misunderstandings please?
@Sir_Ovens @DontTalkDTI suggested something along the lines of "Characters with this type of Acausality are independent of a system of cause and effect. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on the system(s) of causality they're independent from, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible."
I would still be happy for it to be changed to that.
Mind also pinging the staff who disagreed with the suggestion that Agnaa provided? It would be helpful to know their perspective side on this.
I am aware. This still did not solve the major issues.Although, I do think that my change isn't really substantive; it's not changing the practical issues brought up this thread, just clearing up a minor side-issue.
Okay i think im understanding just a tiny bit of what you mean.Nope, I disagree with this. Type 4 is still under “causality as a whole”. They just operate different system.
Type 5 is not beyond all forms of causality. We reworded the definition to remove that implication.
You cannot prove that a character is beyond all forms of causality, and so there's no reason to exclude a character from being in type 4.
He brought them, and they got rejected in that said thread. If you don't mind, check the thread work made by staff.
?????
Ultima never commented in that thread.
How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????Almost.
Type 5 is, right now, is just "beyond a form of causality, making them immune to anything from that form of causality", Characters would still qualify even if they reside on a higher form of causality, or if there was a form of causality above them in their verse.
Still, that sort of stuff you point out is why we moved to this different definition. It'd suck if a character who was above 3 forms of causality, each unaffected by the last, didn't get type 5, while a character who was just above 1 did. So we changed the definition to one that wasn't based above transcending the verse's own cosmology.
It provides invulnerability, instead of just resistance to causality manip/fate manip.How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????
So the only difference is that Type 4's are interacted with on a regular basis and Type 5's aren't and cannot be interacted with at all without any detailed explanations?It provides invulnerability, instead of just resistance to causality manip/fate manip.
Type 4 does not need to be interacted with unless the system of causality in that said verse said so.How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????
Yeah.So the only difference is that Type 4's are interacted with on a regular basis and Type 5's aren't and cannot be interacted with at all without any detailed explanations?
Type 1: Immune to causality Manipulation and possibly plot manipulation (since plot manipulation can also write your history)Just to be precise.
In my mind, all the types work like this:
Type 1 means your past won't affect your present. So me going back in time and cutting your arm off won't affect your arm in the present.
Type 2 means your future won't affect your present. So I can change your fate and it won't do anything to your present outcome.
Type 3 (for some odd reason) means your past, present, and future, work independently and any instance of "you" is an individual onto themselves.
Type 4 means the common laws of causality don't apply to you. You are still bound by causality, but not in a way we understand. To you, Event A leading to Event B doesn't have to happen. Event A could go to Event C, D, or E and no one can control it or predict it.
Type 5 means you've transcended causality as a concept (at least one layer of it) and are not bound by any event structures, regardless if they're linear or not. Event A leading to Event B, C, D, E etc. doesn't matter because any and every event is merely a suggestion. It can or cannot happen and it's entirely up to you. Congratulations, you have achieved true freedom.
Based on Agnaa's interpretation of type 5 I think the explanation above is simple and accurate enough to understand. If it wasn't obvious, I agree with his interpretation.
Huh? Since when is size even relevant to the thread? I don't get you at all.I mean there are always exeptions to the rule? Case by case still applies to whether or not a type 5 can be touched by a character bound by causality.
You fail to realize that some characters are type 5 by being physically larger than the concept itself. At that point, anything that can touch them would be physically that large as well. The antifeat there would be if they were human sized and could still touch them.
Oh, you were referring to this. Yes, I agree. Actually, my speech is literally meant in general terms.???
Dude even concepts have sizes if they're dimensionally bound. 4D causality won't affect a 5D that's physically larger than the multiverse.