• 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.

Yeet type 5 Acausality or change it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said above, I disagree with part of Ultima's suggestion there.

However, I'd be fine with adding my suggested standards for anti-feats to the Acausality page.
 
To note: Warhammer only qualifies for a "possibly" because the quote for the interaction itself is up to interpretation, it has basically everything it could want to qualify down to the letter
 
I dont know if my suggestion will work but..

I think dont have need too strict with this type, i mean we must see the context of the verse it self. If author write the causality is only exist in level 1 of existance or abstraction, and write again level 2 is beyond causality and there are no causality in that, we must consider level 2 of existance or abstraction is acausality 5. We dont need says they is uninteracable not because they's acausality/not because beyond causality but because they are higher existance or because they are abstract

Because in fact they existance or abstraction it self is already beyond causality. So they will have many thing at one that make him uninteracable, because they beyond causality and because higher existance and/or because abstraction
 
The wiki standards even reject that Type 2 and 3 Transdual beings have Acausality 5 so I doubt that your suggestion will work.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, I disagree with this. Type 4 is still under “causality as a whole”. They just operate different system.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
He brought them, and they got rejected in that said thread. If you don't mind, check the thread work made by staff.
This is the whole purpose of this thread, honestly. Clearing out the definition of acc type 5.
 
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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality
Click to expand...
It literally says this: “Existing outside causality.”
Type 4 is: “Existing inside causality but operates the different system.”
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I meant the characters are already brought in that said thread (by other members), and it got rejected.
I also found it interesting that no one looked up the linked thread, even tho it is the main purpose of this thread.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMAO (so we are same :))
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Alright, seems reasonable but again, what he provides should be discussed deeply in that thread within other verse supporters.
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Alright. I was only commenting on the fact that you did not see the thread. That's all.
Ya, not all of them really agreed with it. Because I still disagree with it if it is still under this wiki standards.
 
So after I heard from @Agnaa about keeping the weird rewording, I think it is significant to change it.
It literally brings new users and even the whole wiki base to confusion.
Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality.
Click to expand...
I am referring to the first sentence of acc type 5.
 
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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Thank you for your assistance and worthy input.
 
Antvasima said:
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?
Click to expand...
So has anything happened on this front yet?
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
@Sir_Ovens @DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?
 
Can somebody list ALL of the staff members who have commented in this thread previously please?
 
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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am aware. This still did not solve the major issues.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay i think im understanding just a tiny bit of what you mean.

So what your saying is that..

Type 5 is being "beyond all of causality" in your respective cosmology. So if a verse caps out at planet level and has no showings of anything in the tier 2 ball park. And this 5-B God tier is stated to be beyond all causality in their verse, and can't be interacted with unless she will it by taking a host body (im just doing a random example)

Shes only "Beyond all causality" in her respective cosmology.

Hence why you said "Type 5 is not transcendental to all forms of causality" because not only is it NLF but would involve basically high-1B/Low 1-A stuff right?

Did I understand what your saying correctly?
 
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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????
 
Just to be clear.

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. It works on clone rules so killing or harming one instance won't kill or harm any other instance.

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.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yeah.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
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.
Click to expand...
Type 1: Immune to causality Manipulation and possibly plot manipulation (since plot manipulation can also write your history)
Type 2: Immune to fate manipulation & causality manipulation (because your future and past are not dependent on your present)
Type 3: Just being independent because versions of you are in another place (this actually involves parallel universe's theory & and you got causality manipulation immunity)
Type 4: You are in a different operating system other than our regular one (a perfect example is Elder verse)
Type 5: Transcending them all and being impossible to be interacted with (since they are unbound by causality means)

The difference between type 4 and type 5 is that one is bounded by causality, even if it is not a regular one, and the other is unbound, making it impossible to interact with. Now we got an issue, someone from the regular operating system of causality should not even be able to interact with someone who is in a different one.

The issue in this thread is not the definition of type 5; it is about that if there is no statement of interaction. Still, it has been shown that there is no anti-feat; the character should qualify, or in words, if the ability is beyond the acc type 5, and he got invulnerability (none interaction) depends on this, this is no anti-feat.

You guys should stop overestimating the terms “unbound/beyond < outside.” They are the same meaning.
Yes, I am against vague statements like “I am beyond causality” without any further explanation. But if the verse has shown that no effects or attacks apply to him, this is acc type 4. Type 5 will be if there is no interaction 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.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
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.
Click to expand...
Huh? Since when is size even relevant to the thread? I don't get you at all.
If you are unbound or outside the system, the size does not even matter. Since when do you think the system of causality really cares how big you are?

Type 5 is impossible to be interacted with, even if you are size 11. This is the concept; you can't touch him not because he is larger, but because no system is applied to him.

If I touch you (cause), you will be touched (effect). This is our system of causality in real life (simple example). Characters who are unbound by this, then I can't even touch them since nothing will be reflected or caused. Ya, the concept of acc type 5 is impossible to comprehend. But this is how we at least interpret it.
 
???

Dude even concepts have sizes if they're dimensionally bound. 4D causality won't affect a 5D that's physically larger than the multiverse.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
???

Dude even concepts have sizes if they're dimensionally bound. 4D causality won't affect a 5D that's physically larger than the multiverse.
Click to expand...
Oh, you were referring to this. Yes, I agree. Actually, my speech is literally meant in general terms.
 
Just one thing I would like to address about the interaction differences between type 4 and type 5.

The difference between type 4 and type 5 is that one is bounded by causality, even if it is not a regular one, and the other is unbound, making it impossible to interact with. Now we got an issue, someone from the regular operating system of causality should not even be able to interact with someone who is in a different one.

The issue in this thread is not the definition of type 5; it is about that if there is no statement of interaction. Still, it has been shown that there is no anti-feat; the character should qualify, or in words, if the ability is beyond the acc type 5, and he got invulnerability (none interaction) depends on this, this is no anti-feat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
658
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
Bobsican
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little
2
Replies
71
Views
9K
Planck69
Planck69
RaveeCPN
  • Locked
Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality
3 4 5
Replies
178
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Caleb1775
Adding more examples for Acausality, Small Size, and Large Size
Replies
0
Views
172
Caleb1775
Caleb1775
Back
Top