• 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.
Yemma670 said:
Tbh The Heart does not need Acausality Type 5 to be uninteractable. He's literally uniteractible in all states of being

From Abstracts, to Nonexistent beings to Data/Info entities, etc. He sees all things from all things but he remains unseen, unheard, uninteractable. He transcends the multiverse and in fact the logic/laws/rules of the multiverse is something he attributed to time and space. He remains unaffected by everything, although he sees everything. Both immanent, and transcendent. If higher dimensions are introduced, he'd be straight up 1A as the concept of space/dimension is merely a manifestation, a Lower thing, as compared to his being...........

As for Acausality Type 5 as a whole. Thinking about it, it's not so difficult to come to a decision..... Why don't we just go by actual feats shown? rather than one off statement.

Let's use Madoka, and assume Acausality Type 5 didn't exist at all on vsbw. It's useless. None of what she has will have any benefits at all if the damn Acausality Type 5 category didn't exist on wiki. In fact no one would've bat an eye to that statement.

Anos is a great example of an uninteractable being, and he's outside order, which has the order of causality, and he remains unaffected by it, unless with very specific weapons. Even if Acausality type 5 doesn't exist he'd still have something on his belt.

Now compare that to Madoka. Who just ascended into a higher dimensional plane, hence, her whole thing is she's not even in the multiverse itself.
Click to expand...
Welcome back, our hero. I actually waited for you to see the thread, as I know you were strict against new standards.
 
Yemma670 said:
Why don't we just go by actual feats shown? rather than one off statement.
Click to expand...
This is what I think all of us who are here and are against the new definition support, even Elizhaa said it. It is not necessary to have a rule that makes no one qualify and that detracts from the validation of feats, statments and evidence presented, simply the evidence is the best proof here.
 
So what is currently left to do here?
 
Each side would need to explain their arguments in single posts before I call for any more staff members.
 
Acausality isn't just about interaction, it's also about being unaffected by anything. So characters that have shown to undergo changes would also not qualify. True Aca type 5 beings will be unchangeable.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Acausality isn't just about interaction, it's also about being unaffected by anything. So characters that have shown to undergo changes would also not qualify. True Aca type 5 beings will be unchangeable.
Click to expand...
New standards ignore what you said and focus more about interaction. Just saying.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
That's glaring flaw imo.

A character undergoing a change would be more of a disqualifier than another character interacting with it.
Click to expand...
Like I argued about it weeks ago, and this is how new standards works

You are beyond everything, including causality? — Yes
Are you even beyond the whole system of causality? — Yes
Did the series show any anti-feat for none-interaction? — No
But did it state that you can't interact? — No

He does not qualify for one
 
Last edited:
Dread said:
Like I argued about it weeks ago and this is how new standards works

You are beyond everything, including causality? — Yes
Are you even beyond the whole system of causality? — Yes
Did the series show any anti-feat for interaction? — No
But did it state that you can't interact? — No

He does not qualify one
Click to expand...
In that situation, I feel like, "Have you been shown to be changed/affected by any action?" could replace the last two questions. And would be more definitive.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
In that situation, I feel like, "Have you been shown to be changed/affected by any action?" could replace the last two questions. And would be more definitive.
Click to expand...
This is not my sole purpose. The main point in your statement is that no one qualifies because there is no explicit statement of interaction associated with causality. Read the OP thread, and I gave a link to where we were working on it. Read everything, and you will understand my point.
 
Dread said:
Like I argued about it weeks ago and this is how new standards works

You are beyond everything, including causality? — Yes
Are you even beyond the whole system of causality? — Yes
Did the series show any anti-feat for interaction? — No
But did it state that you can't interact? — No

He does not qualify one
Click to expand...
Iamunanimousinthat said:
In that situation, I feel like, "Have you been shown to be changed/affected by any action?" could replace the last two questions. And would be more definitive.
Click to expand...
Dread said:
This is not my sole purpose. The main point in your statement is that no one qualifies because there is no explicit statement of interaction associated with causality. Read the OP thread, and I gave a link to where we were working on it. Read everything, and you will understand my point.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT

What do you think?
 
Dread said:
This is not my sole purpose. The main point in your statement is that no one qualifies because there is no explicit statement of interaction associated with causality. Read the OP thread, and I gave a link to where we were working on it. Read everything, and you will understand my point.
Click to expand...
I've read your OP, and focusing on Type 5 being unchangable answeres the first problem you proposed:

  1. They have some other ability that gives them an uninteractable state, such as Transduality, NEP, HDE, AE Type 1, etc., which explains their uninteractablness, so it's not a result of Type 5 Accausality or
There is no requirement for a Transdual, NEP, HDE, or AE being to be unchanging and that would be the key detail to differentiate Type 5 from them.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I've read your OP, and focusing on Type 5 being unchangable answeres the first problem you proposed:

  1. They have some other ability that gives them an uninteractable state, such as Transduality, NEP, HDE, AE Type 1, etc., which explains their uninteractablness, so it's not a result of Type 5 Accausality or
There is no requirement for a Transdual, NEP, HDE, or AE being to be unchanging and that would be the key detail to differentiate Type 5 from them.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with new standards?
 
Personally, I'd say what counts as an anti-feat for Acausality Type 5 would largely be restricted to occasions where the alleged acausal character is interacted with by normal people, or more generally beings that have absolutely no precedent for being able to do that; in these cases, I'd be fine with just giving them resistance to Causality Manipulation, by virtue of those statements having demonstrable proof of not being fully literal, or at least, not literal enough to be taken to their logical conclusion. Pretty much what Agnaa said up there.

I don't think characters being shown to act at all would necessarily count as an anti-feat, though, particularly if those scenarios strictly involve the Acausal character in question and other entities participating in the same state of existence as them. Depending on the case, I believe it'd be fine to treat these occasions as narrative concessions, since art certainly has its limits and can't exactly depict a lot of other things as is. As an extension of this point, I'd like to rise the question of: Why exactly do we refuse to give Type 5 even if the character in question has no anti-feats to speak of? Is it because of concerns regarding what "Beyond cause and effect" would mean?

Nevertheless, to help with the "No characters qualify for this!" issue, I think a few characters do still qualify anyway. For instance, you got the The Ultimate Gods, who exist on a level in which time and change are illusions. Indeed, that there appears to be change at all is just a trick of the mind caused by dimensioned beings experiencing different viewpoints of the same whole, which nonetheless remains unchanged (All of that is a product of local perspectives, which the Ultimate Gods are beyond):

Time, the waves went on, is motionless, and without beginning or end. That it has motion, and is the cause of change, is an illusion. Indeed, it is itself really an illusion, for except to the narrow sight of beings in limited dimensions there are no such things as past, present, and future. Men think of time only because of what they call change, yet that too is illusion. All that was, and is, and is to be, exists simultaneously.

These revelations came with a godlike solemnity which left Carter unable to doubt. Even though they lay almost beyond his comprehension, he felt that they must be true in the light of that final cosmic reality which belies all local perspectives and narrow partial views; and he was familiar enough with profound speculations to be free from the bondage of local and partial conceptions. Had his whole quest not been based upon a faith in the unreality of the local and partial?

After an impressive pause the waves continued, saying that what the denizens of few-dimensioned zones call change is merely a function of their consciousness, which views the external world from various cosmic angles. As the shapes produced by the cutting of a cone seem to vary with the angles of cutting—being circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola according to that angle, yet without any change in the cone itself—so do the local aspects of an unchanged and endless reality seem to change with the cosmic angle of regarding. To this variety of angles of consciousness the feeble beings of the inner worlds are slaves, since with rare exceptions they cannot learn to control them. Only a few students of forbidden things have gained inklings of this control, and have thereby conquered time and change. But the entities outside the Gates command all angles, and view the myriad parts of the cosmos in terms of fragmentary, change-involving perspective, or of the changeless totality beyond perspective, in accordance with their will.
Click to expand...

As for the Elder Scrolls characters, I'd say they qualify as well, yes. TES in general places a lot of focus on how the Gods are completely beyond linear time and on a level where everything happens simultaneously, and as such their lives can't really support most of the qualities of a narrative to begin with. They're explicitly above cause, consequence and duration (All those being "trappings" that they willingly adopt to interact with mortals), and the whole idea of "if-then," and are creatures of "the Ever-Now."

In fact, as a direct consequence of them lacking the concept of duration, it's stated that, although from a limited perspective, godly states of being may "eventually" snap back into normal, temporal states, that's not actually the case, and eventuality as a whole is rendered moot; it seems like it ended, but it's actually occuring eternally outside of time. And this is actually practically demonstrated in verse, too:

www.imperial-library.info

Nu-Mantia Intercept — The Imperial Library

Letters exchanged betwee Nu-Hatta and members of the Elder Countil, warning of an ancient threat and outlining the lore of Creation and the Towers
www.imperial-library.info www.imperial-library.info

Auriel-that-is-Akatosh returned to Mundex Arena from his dominion planet, signaling all Aedra to convene at a static meeting that would last outside of aurbic time. His sleek and silver vessel became a spike into the changing earth and the glimmerwinds of its impact warned any spirit that entered aura with it would become recorded-- that by consent of presence their actions here would last of a period unassailable, and would be so whatever might come later to these spirits, even if they rejoined the aether or succumbed willingly or by treachery to a sithite erasure. Thus could the Aedra and their cohorts truly covene in realness.

Our forebears saw the erection of Ada-mantia, Ur-Tower, and the Zero Stone. Let the Elders acknowledge this truth: every Tower bears its Stone. The impossipoint of the Convention was the first, though another bears the true title of First Stone.
Click to expand...

Basically, at the dawn of existence, the Gods had a convention outside of time, where they decided what the laws of the mortal plane would be. And since that meeting happened in a timeless state of being, it's "static," and even though to mortals, it seems like the Gods have long since finished it, they're actually still in there, constantly bringing the laws of reality into being through their discussion.

And then of course, you have the two highest entities being the primordial concepts of Stasis and Change, beyond even the above, and a supreme being who transcends both of them.

So, yeah, I think the idea that no one actually qualifies for Type 5 is kind of wack, even under stricter standards.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Personally, I'd say what counts as an anti-feat for Acausality Type 5 would largely be restricted to occasions where the alleged acausal character is interacted with by normal people, or more generally beings that have absolutely no precedent for being able to do that; in these cases, I'd be fine with just giving them resistance to Causality Manipulation, by virtue of those statements having demonstrable proof of not being fully literal, or at least, not literal enough to be taken to their logical conclusion. Pretty much what Agnaa said up there.

I don't think characters being shown to act at all would necessarily count as an anti-feat, though, particularly if those scenarios strictly involve the Acausal character in question and other entities participating in the same state of existence as them. Depending on the case, I believe it'd be fine to treat these occasions as narrative concessions, since art certainly has its limits and can't exactly depict a lot of other things as is. As an extension of this point, I'd like to rise the question of: Why exactly do we refuse to give Type 5 even if the character in question has no anti-feats to speak of? Is it because of concerns regarding what "Beyond cause and effect" would mean?

Nevertheless, to help with the "No characters qualify for this!" issue, I think a few characters do still qualify anyway. For instance, you got the The Ultimate Gods, who exist on a level in which time and change are illusions. Indeed, that there appears to be change at all is just a trick of the mind caused by dimensioned beings experiencing different viewpoints of the same whole, which nonetheless remains unchanged (All of that is a product of local perspectives, which the Ultimate Gods are beyond):



As for the Elder Scrolls characters, I'd say they qualify as well, yes. TES in general places a lot of focus on how the Gods are completely beyond linear time and on a level where everything happens simultaneously, and as such their lives can't really support most of the qualities of a narrative to begin with. They're explicitly above cause, consequence and duration (All those being "trappings" that they willingly adopt to interact with mortals), and the whole idea of "if-then," and are creatures of "the Ever-Now."

In fact, as a direct consequence of them lacking the concept of duration, it's stated that, although from a limited perspective, godly states of being may "eventually" snap back into normal, temporal states, that's not actually the case, and eventuality as a whole is rendered moot; it seems like it ended, but it's actually occuring eternally outside of time. And this is actually practically demonstrated in verse, too:

www.imperial-library.info

Nu-Mantia Intercept — The Imperial Library

Letters exchanged betwee Nu-Hatta and members of the Elder Countil, warning of an ancient threat and outlining the lore of Creation and the Towers
www.imperial-library.info www.imperial-library.info



Basically, at the dawn of existence, the Gods had a convention outside of time, where they decided what the laws of the mortal plane would be. And since that meeting happened in a timeless state of being, it's "static," and even though to mortals, it seems like the Gods have long since finished it, they're actually still in there, constantly bringing the laws of reality into being through their discussion.

And then of course, you have the two highest entities being the primordial concepts of Stasis and Change, beyond even the above, and a supreme being who transcends both of them.

So, yeah, I think the idea that no one actually qualifies for Type 5 is kind of wack, even under stricter standards.
Click to expand...
Can you give us your opinion on Anos/Garham situation that is made by Dereck? We would appreciate it.
 
Also, I want to state something before anyone thinks Ultima already covered the point:

Nothing Ultima said has the Uninteractable proof required by the new requirement, just a wall of text explaining how far beyond cause and effect they are with no Uninteractable evidence. So this did not help anything. In fact, @Ultima_Reality, I would advise you to go to my OP thread, and there is a link; mind has a look at how @Everything12 handled and rejected every character.

@Antvasima This is currently the update or message from Ultima. Nothing here really changed or improved.
None of the characters still qualify it as far.

But it is better to clarify that we have already proposed characters with no anti-feat and all the possible shreds of evidence statements. Still, they were rejected because they did not have the proof of uninteractable; the same goes for Ultima's point.
 
Dread said:
Nothing Ultima said has the Uninteractable proof required by the new requirement, just a wall of text explaining how far beyond cause and effect they are with no Uninteractable evidence
Click to expand...
This is the current description on the page:

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.
Click to expand...

Both of the cases I've mentioned qualify for the bolded criterion, which from the looks of it, is the primary phrasing given in the page (With "uninteractable" seemed like it's more something laying out the practical side of it). If Everything somehow thinks even those cases don't qualify, then I disagree with his judgement, seeing as it's be clearly contradicted by the written standards themselves.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
This is the current description on the page:



Both of the cases I've mentioned qualify for the bolded criterion, which from the looks of it, is the primary phrasing given in the page (With "uninteractable" seemed like it's more something laying out the logical/practical side of it). If Everything somehow thinks even those cases don't qualify, then I disagree with his judgement, seeing as it'd be clearly contradicted by the written standards themselves.
Click to expand...
No Ultima, those characters you mentioned are rejected by @Everything12 in that thread.
No interaction proof = no qualification. Hence, I created this thread in the first place. Please take your time and see the thread I have linked in the OP for more info.

Also, did you forget something?
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 its 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 an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Ultima_Reality said:
If Everything somehow thinks even those cases don't qualify, then I disagree with his judgement, seeing as it's be clearly contradicted by the written standards themselves.
Click to expand...
Hence, I stated this in one of my suggestions as well:
  • We need more than 1 staff member willing to evaluate any Type 5 Acausality potential characters as it appears the 1 staff member who is being very helpful in reviewing the current Type 5 Accausals is overwhelmed with not just the thread but other ongoing things in their life as they take time to respond but then a long pause usually between post. This makes the process take longer and is unfair to him. Also, having 1 staff member doing it makes other wiki members feel a sense of pain. Some members can't help but feel a bit of neglect and feel he's been given a lot of power here or feels they're not knowledgeable. (not claiming anyone is feeling that way or accusing anyone, but from some comments I read, it was just a vague feeling that's what they were implying)
Click to expand...
We need to reword the acc type 5 regardless.
 
Dread said:
Also, did you forget something?
Click to expand...
I don't see how this note relates to the topic at hand, or the examples I've given. All it boils down to is "Time and causality aren't necessarily linked, and as such transcending the former does not mean transcendence over the latter."

Dread said:
Hence, I stated this in one of my suggestions as well:
Click to expand...
As said, if even those cases (And those similar to them) were rejected by Everything, then I disagree with his judgement on the matter, as it contradicts the criterion laid out on the Acausality page itself. By extension, I wouldn't mind giving my own look at the proposed characters, regardless.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
I don't see how this note relates to the topic at hand, or the examples I've given. All it boils down to is "Time and causality aren't necessarily linked, and as such transcending the former does not mean transcendence over the latter."
Click to expand...
This does not justify anything. I literally don't see any proof that is being uninteractable due to the fact they are beyond cause and effect, clear and explicit.
Ultima_Reality said:
As said, if even those cases (And those similar to them) were rejected by Everything, then I disagree with his judgement on the matter, as it contradicts the criterion laid out on the Acausality page itself. By extension, I wouldn't mind giving my own look at the proposed characters, regardless.
Click to expand...
Sure, thing. But regardless of this, I need to suggest something for future reference, adding a note on the page to avoid this.
 
I know this is a staff thread, and I apologize for commenting, but I don’t think interacting with other characters (like talking to them), let alone other characters remembering the person with Type 5 exists should NEVER count as an anti feat, it makes very little sense. Also if it’s stated that they transcend causality more than once, it shouldn’t be just thrown to the side. (Sorry I just needed to get that out. No more after this)
 
Dread said:
This does not justify anything. I literally don't see any proof that is being uninteractable due to the fact they are beyond cause and effect, clear and explicit.
Click to expand...
It offers proof that they are unable to undergo change enacted by/under systems of causality, which is what the page requires, as I've shown up there. I think you and other people are way too hung up on the "unable to be interacted with" bit of the description, without realizing that the page itself treats "Unable to be interacted with" as being just a practical consequence of "unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality."
 
Ultima_Reality said:
It offers proof that they are unable to undergo change enacted by/under systems of causality, which is what the page requires, as I've shown up there. I think you and other people are way too hung up on the "unable to be interacted with" bit of the description, without realizing that the page itself treats "Unable to be interacted with" as a logical consequence of "unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality."
Click to expand...
DaReaperMan said:
Yeah, that's the thing, "clear and Explicit" is about the dumbest thing to expect when characters are dealing with something as fucky as transcending causality
Click to expand...
We just have to remove the no proof of uninteractable = no qualify.
Go to the thread link in my OP and CTRL + F “Uninteractable” in that thread. Just see how many rejections and discussions about it.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Personally, I'd say what counts as an anti-feat for Acausality Type 5 would largely be restricted to occasions where the alleged acausal character is interacted with by normal people, or more generally beings that have absolutely no precedent for being able to do that; in these cases, I'd be fine with just giving them resistance to Causality Manipulation, by virtue of those statements having demonstrable proof of not being fully literal, or at least, not literal enough to be taken to their logical conclusion. Pretty much what Agnaa said up there.

I don't think characters being shown to act at all would necessarily count as an anti-feat, though, particularly if those scenarios strictly involve the Acausal character in question and other entities participating in the same state of existence as them. Depending on the case, I believe it'd be fine to treat these occasions as narrative concessions, since art certainly has its limits and can't exactly depict a lot of other things as is.
Click to expand...
This. This here is what I think where misunderstanding of it is.

This should be reworded and added to the Type 5 Acausality note on the new standard. It would clear a lot of confusion up I believe.
 
DaReaperMan said:
Yeah, that's the thing, "clear and Explicit" is about the dumbest thing to expect when characters are dealing with something as fucky as transcending causality
Click to expand...
Ya right? Hence, the whole purpose of the thread is to remove such a rule.
TheUnshakableOne said:
This. This here is what I think where misunderstanding of it is.

This should be recorded and added to the Type 5 Acausality note on the new standard. It would clear a lot of confusion up I believe.
Click to expand...
Exactly, my whole thread point, ultima ^^. I am sure, you did not check the thread OP till now. Take a look at it.
 
I think explicit statements of being unable to be changed, as Ultima has presented, should qualify.

But vaguer stuff like "They're beyond all of causality" would need something more. That "something more" could be statements of being uninteractable because of it.

I somewhat disagree with Ultima; I think receiving changes without there being a decent explanation should be an anti-feat, even if it's from a superhuman. I'm also not interested in the narrative license idea as a reason to not consider certain things anti-feats. Although, I only think interaction in relation to the lower form of causality they're meant to transcend should be an anti-feat. We don't consider these characters above all change, just above ordinary change in their verse, so them changing because of higher-order stuff isn't an anti-feat.

This does not mean that I think Anos' stuff qualifies. "He exists outside of the framework of the world! He's outside of causality!" does not qualify. There's no proof of uninteractibility or being beyond change, in the quotes that I've been shown.
 
Agnaa said:
This does not mean that I think Anos' stuff qualifies. "He exists outside of the framework of the world! He's outside of causality!" does not qualify. There's no proof of uninteractibility or being beyond change, in the quotes that I've been shown.
Click to expand...
I have said many times that Anos physical body only has Type 4 acausal, Type 5 is for his source, his source is NEP Type 2, Transdual Type 2, and was Type 5 acausal.
 
That is not an adequate response to what I said.

I said that Anos' evidence was insufficient. You said "No, he's a Type 4 acausal with his body, with a NEP 2 transdual 2 type 5 acausal source..."

That is not providing evidence. That's rambling off assertions.
 
Agnaa said:
That is not an adequate response to what I said.

I said that Anos' evidence was insufficient. You said "No, he's a Type 4 acausal with his body, with a NEP 2 transdual 2 type 5 acausal source..."

That is not providing evidence. That's rambling off assertions.
Click to expand...
Just want ask if you lack of causality, and that make you cant be interact by some attack because explicit says you dont have result. It is enough for aca 5??
 
Dereck: From that description, none of that sounds like it would qualify under the standards as I hold them (and as I understand Ultima holds them). It does not indicate that his source is unable to change, or unable to be interacted with because it's outside of causality.

Fixxed: Probably? Sounds promising, but the scans should get posted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deagonx
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much For Too Little (2)
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Eseseso
  • Locked
Revisions for Acausality Types 1 & 4
Replies
29
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Protector_Hunk
A Question About Acausality Type 5
Replies
2
Views
455
Berga14
Berga14
Elyartaker
Acausality Type 5
Replies
8
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Back
Top