Yeet type 5 Acausality or change it again

[Agnaa]

Dread: I don't really understand what you're saying, but I think I disagree.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Dread: I don't really understand what you're saying, but I think I disagree.

I did not suggest anything new. Your disagreement is on what specifically?

 

[Agnaa]

As I said, I don't really understand, but what I seemed to get out of it that I disagree with is:

That Type 4 is bounded by causality, and Type 5 isn't.

That being unbounded by causality without anti-feats makes you not require statements of interaction.

That there can be no anti-feats.

Don't take this as meaning that I agree with the rest, since I still struggled to understand it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

As I said, I don't really understand, but what I seemed to get out of it that I disagree with is:

That Type 4 is bounded by causality, and Type 5 isn't.

Alright, explain me this term in your own understanding

Type 5: Causality Transcendence

It means you transcend causality, aka being unbound by it.

But if you suggest it is bound by causality, this is layers of acc type 4 which someone else here suggests as an alternative.

That being unbounded by causality without anti-feats makes you not require statements of interaction.

I said otherwise

That there can be no anti-feats.

As far as those who actually qualify, they don't present any anti-feats. And if there is any anti-feat, they don't qualify.

Don't take this as meaning that I agree with the rest, since I still struggled to understand it.

Alright. Happens!

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, explain me this term in your own understanding

They'd end up transcending some form of causality (you can't be immune to attacks by being beyond regular causality if you're not beyond regular causality), but characters who transcend causality do not automatically get it, and they'd still be bound by higher forms of causality.

this is layers of acc type 4 which someone else here suggests as an alternative.

As said in the last thread, that seems like a bad idea since that has a far more potent application.

As far as those who actually qualify, they don't present any anti-feats. And if there is any anti-feat, they don't qualify.

No, you should just weigh the amount of anti-feats against the amount of feats.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright, explain me this term in your own understanding

They'd end up transcending some form of causality (you can't be immune to attacks by being beyond regular causality if you're not beyond regular causality), but characters who transcend causality do not automatically get it, and they'd still be bound by higher forms of causality.

This needs a whole complete rewording, as the current one does not mean this at all. According to this, I would rather count it as higher degree of acc type 4.

this is layers of acc type 4 which someone else here suggests as an alternative.

As said in the last thread, that seems like a bad idea since that has a far more potent application.

Welp this suggestion or a complete rewording in our current wiki standards.

As far as those who actually qualify, they don't present any anti-feats. And if there is any anti-feat, they don't qualify.

No, you should just weigh the amount of anti-feats against the amount of feats.

Sure thing, but what if the verse said there would be no interaction in this character due to his nature, and there are no anti-feats presented?
I think the character should qualify regardless.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think the cause for concern here is that being type 5 means you can't be interacted with as long as said interaction follows cause and effect laws.

However, we also don't want other abilities with similar effects to compound with type 5, such as being abstract or physically larger in a higher dimensional sense.

I've talked with Agnaa and Ultima off site and gotten a better understanding of what they want. So I propose this:

Acausality type 5 would be given to characters if they "transcend" a layer of causality within their verse. The scrutiny this entails will be standard; prove they can't be interacted with, or otherwise change in any meaningful way that could be attributed to cause and effect.

I think this standard will vet itself nicely since as per status quo, higher dimensionals don't get feats of change very often. They're either vague or written by mad men who understand the intricacies of science, math, or philosophy enough to not contradict themselves on a fundamental level. In both cases, antifeats of type 5 would not present themselves as clearly but due to the compounding effect as stated above, they would also be hard to prove. However case by case should come into play here and I'd like if we could bring up a real example of a verse that would have type 5 given this standard to be a sort of benchmark. I believe Ultima brought up 2 examples above and I think Agnaa should evaluate them.

Lower dimensionals however, will take the full brunt of the standards as they will have to prove that they are somehow uninteractable whilst simultaneously subject to the flow of time. I think feats speak for themselves here and it would take incredible evidence to prove a lower dimensional has type 5 so the problem fixes itself.

 

[Agnaa]

This needs a whole complete rewording, as the current one does not mean this at all.

Well, I suggested a rewording, but people in the last thread thought their wording captured their intention just fine.

Sure thing, but what if the verse said there would be no interaction in this character due to his nature, and there are no anti-feats presented?
I think the character should qualify regardless.

If they say that interaction is impossible because they're beyond causality/unable to be changed, then sure.

Acausality type 5 would be given to characters if they "transcend" a layer of causality within their verse. The scrutiny this entails will be standard; prove they can't be interacted with, or otherwise change in any meaningful way that could be attributed to cause and effect.

I disagree. This sort of thing was suggested in the last thread but rejected there.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Then we're just fishing for a "can't be touched because beyond causality" statement which is the problem because no one is ever that specific in text.

Which is why I'm trying to find at least one baseline instance that we could verifiably point to and say, if your character doesn't look like this, it doesn't have type 5.

 

[Agnaa]

They are that specific, Ultima has presented two examples, and DaReaperMan/Blackcurrant has presented another example.

jfc y'all, how many times do I need to point that out?

 

[Sniper670]

Uhh, Anos has also been mentioned several times

 

[DaReaperMan]

Uhh, Anos has also been mentioned several times

Yes, guess who also doesn't qualify?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think the cause for concern here is that being type 5 means you can't be interacted with as long as said interaction follows cause and effect laws.

However, we also don't want other abilities with similar effects to compound with type 5, such as being abstract or physically larger in a higher dimensional sense.

I've talked with Agnaa and Ultima off site and gotten a better understanding of what they want. So I propose this:

Acausality type 5 would be given to characters if they "transcend" a layer of causality within their verse. The scrutiny this entails will be standard; prove they can't be interacted with, or otherwise change in any meaningful way that could be attributed to cause and effect.

I think this standard will vet itself nicely since as per status quo, higher dimensionals don't get feats of change very often. They're either vague or written by mad men who understand the intricacies of science, math, or philosophy enough to not contradict themselves on a fundamental level. In both cases, antifeats of type 5 would not present themselves as clearly but due to the compounding effect as stated above, they would also be hard to prove. However case by case should come into play here and I'd like if we could bring up a real example of a verse that would have type 5 given this standard to be a sort of benchmark. I believe Ultima brought up 2 examples above and I think Agnaa should evaluate them.

Lower dimensionals however, will take the full brunt of the standards as they will have to prove that they are somehow uninteractable whilst simultaneously subject to the flow of time. I think feats speak for themselves here and it would take incredible evidence to prove a lower dimensional has type 5 so the problem fixes itself.

So now our new standard is that acc type 5 is still bound by causality, but you are transcending a layer of it?
Let's say, the user transcends acc type 4 layer (causality type 4 layer), does he qualify?

What about the verse who is stated that characters are not even bound by causality by all means? We can't go against them and say they are still bound by some form of causality?

Eh, this makes no sense.

 

[ImmortalDread]

They are that specific, Ultima has presented two examples, and DaReaperMan/Blackcurrant has presented another example.

jfc y'all, how many times do I need to point that out?

No, they are not straight specific. Are you referring to new standards? If yes, then nope. They are not. You can open the thread, and we can discuss it there with other members why it is not, since I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Then we're just fishing for a "can't be touched because beyond causality" statement which is the problem because no one is ever that specific in text.

Which is why I'm trying to find at least one baseline instance that we could verifiably point to and say, if your character doesn't look like this, it doesn't have type 5.

There is none. Ultima examples got no explicit statement about it. Kinda the same as Elder verse.
Now when you say, let's not restrict it, then yes, multiple characters could qualify for it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, for the suggestion: of “transcending a layer from causality”, this is only a higher degree of causality 4.
The last thread has declined this.

Acausality type 5 would be given to characters if they "transcend" a layer of causality within their verse. The scrutiny this entails will be standard; prove they can't be interacted with, or otherwise change in any meaningful way that could be attributed to cause and effect.

I disagree. This sort of thing was suggested in the last thread but rejected there.

How come you disagree after he talked to you off-site?

 

[Agnaa]

No, they are not straight specific. Are you referring to new standards? If yes, then nope. They are not. You can open the thread, and we can discuss it there with other members why it is not, since I don't want to derail the thread.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

How come you disagree after he talked to you off-site?

Because he didn't convince me off-site?

@Sniper670 This is not a thread for asking if characters qualify. Which staff member gave you permission to post that here?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Acausality Type 5, Arceus

Created, exists beyond and transcends the Pokémon reality and the Distortion world. As such he isn't bound to the logic/laws of both worlds. One of which follows normal logic and causal laws, and the other of which defies logic/causal laws

The Original Spirit exists in everything in the cosmology. An all encompassing deity who sees all things from all things, yet unseen, unheard and cannot be interacted with or affected by anything.

Truly speaking, the multiverse is an extension of his avatar, Arceus. In some translations, it asserts that the universe is a representation of the Spirit of the Pokémon who created it.


Translation


Basically speaking, The Original Spirit a panentheistic entity.



Tbh I'm not sure this Qualifies but we're all testing out luck.

yet unseen, unheard and cannot be interacted with or affected by anything.

Proof of this?

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, they are not straight specific. Are you referring to new standards? If yes, then nope. They are not. You can open the thread, and we can discuss it there with other members why it is not, since I don't want to derail the thread.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Only because Ultima gave examples, doesn't mean, that they are accepted by our new standard wikis.
There is no relationship between uninteractable and unbound by causality. Again, we can go deep about this in that thread after someone else opened it.

How come you disagree after he talked to you off-site?

Because he didn't convince me off-site?

Alright. I thought you guys come with this conclusion.

 

[Fixxed]

@Sniper670 This is not a thread for asking if characters qualify. Which staff member gave you permission to post that here?

Bruh we brought many character in this thread. Like ultima and dereck brought some character, so why he cant??

 

[Sniper670]

No, they are not straight specific. Are you referring to new standards? If yes, then nope. They are not. You can open the thread, and we can discuss it there with other members why it is not, since I don't want to derail the thread.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

How come you disagree after he talked to you off-site?

Because he didn't convince me off-site?

@Sniper670 This is not a thread for asking if characters qualify. Which staff member gave you permission to post that here?

Oh, so others can do it but when I do it it's a taboo

Alright then. Imma head out

 

[Agnaa]

Bruh we brought many character in this thread. Like ultima and dereck brought some character, so why he cant??

Group A: No-one qualifies for the new Acausality Type 5!

Group B: Actually, these characters do.

That's quite different from Sniper just asking about whether one character qualifies out of nowhere.

It's answering an argument; countering the idea that no-one qualifies. Sniper's just aimlessly tossing out a character to see if it receives an upgrade. This is not the thread for that.

Also, I did not like Dereck going on about Anos so much, and multiple people told the Anos-posters to stop.

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Theglassman12]

Alright, let's try to at least get the major thing out of the way, how exactly are we going to reword the type 5 acausality stuff, does everyone agree with the whole "lacking a true physical form as a result of being beyond cause and effect" proposal I have or does anyone wanna give their own two cents?

 

[Catpija]

Wouldn't this imply that type 5 can get mind/soul haxed?

 

[Theglassman12]

only if they have the feats of affecting them in the first place.

 

[Catpija]

yes but "lacking a true physical form" makes its look like type 5 is only unaffected by physical attack, maybe add metaphysical form or something alike?

 

[Theglassman12]

Hence my prior statement of being open to any revisions on my draft.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody write an easy to understand explanation post of the relevant arguments here please?

I would also appreciate if somebody can list the staff and knowledgeable members who have commented here previously.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If statements like beyond causality / beyond laws of physics are not qualified for acc type 5 since there is no such interaction statement involved
I think the known character called Akuta Sai (afterlife key) Acausality type 5 should be removed.

I am pretty sure (which reading tons of threads about the verse), there is no statement or mention of being impossible to be interacted with.
I am certain that he got the acausality type 5 from old standards and not the new one.

This is also justification

No citations at all, and sounds rather vague even then for the purposes of the new criteria

Now to my personal opinion, yet there are no statements of interaction, I would like to add that the context itself where it mentioned “beyond causality” makes absolute sense. Because after fusing with The Law of Identity's power / Keena, he became void body (a none existent in a fundamental level).
There is no anti-feat for this, and the only thing I can assume he can't be interacted with is he is untouchable and has no physical form.

Conclusion:​

---

Even if there is no explicit/clear mention interaction statement, I would like to suggest into looking more in the story and context.


Someone ping @DontTalkDT as he is verse supporter and explain if his acausality type 5 makes sense or not.

Also, I would like to share a note that after @Everything12 reject each character, he literally went AFK and never came back? The thread is 3 pages, and he did not comment it once, although he is one of most relevant members here.

@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.

This is actually perfect example for Akuta Sai, because at the point he lacks cause and effect, he also lacked physical form!
But again, new standards won't let him get qualified.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Can somebody write an easy to understand explanation post of the relevant arguments here please?

I would also appreciate if somebody can list the staff and knowledgeable members who have commented here previously.

Summary;

@Ultima_Reality mentioned this

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.

@Agnaa Disagreed partially with what Ultima said by saying

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.

Agnaa had to clarify what he means for some of us

This was his response

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.

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.

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.

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.

(me asking this : )How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????

Agnaa: It provides invulnerability, instead of just resistance to causality manip/fate manip.

@Theglassman12 wrote this out

changing type 5 acausality to the characters lacking a true physical form as a result of being beyond cause and effect, rendering them difficult to affect a la NEP's new requirements? Because as of now with the new standards, we cannot find anyone to use as an example for type 5 acausality, which is rendering type 5 almost irrelevant to have on the site when no one even gets it with the standards.

essentially, they transcend cause and effect to the point that they don't really have a physical form as a result, which ties to the whole point of them being hard to interact with. Merely having no physical form in of itself, or just being a concept or nonexistent being wouldn't be enough for type 5 if they don't elaborate on them being beyond cause and effect as a result.

If im wrong under assumptions here please correct me.

Agnaa is suggesting the new standard (The Current Standard) is proving a character is invulnerable because they transcends a single layer, or more, of causality. This does tie in just slightly with what TheGlassman suggested. Invulnerability can be shown in many ways such as something like intangibility with lacking a form, or simply no damage is taken because of an unchanging nature. However it must be stated that said invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/ is because of transcending Causality.

However, this runs into an issue with the current definition in what is now becoming a debate of Type 4 vs Type 5. Agnaa suggest that Type 5 is still bound by higher forms of Causality. Which is the same thing definition as Type 4. The only true difference now between Type 4 and Type 5 is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5, and if character can fate hax an above baseline Type 4 Acuasal character they can also fate hax a baseline Type 5 Acausal due to higher order Causality being manipulated.

Aside from that; the current standard was more fleshed out and described for us here. perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, or maybe I'm still misunderstanding it but what I gathered here from what was said is that the current standard is apparently something like this;

Current standards is; any character being proposed for Type 5 must have no anti-feats to their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/, and they must be stated to transcends (even/only) 1 layer of Causality at minimum as the explanation for their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/.

This is how I understood was said here.

If such a standard (the now current standard we have) is to stay then a rewording definitely needs to be done to make this more clear and less confusing to prevent any further misunderstandings from happening in the future.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, I think this is worth mentioning:

---

I looked further into the reasoning of Acc type 5 (old standards) and the context behind those three characters: Anos, Madoka and Akuto, and I realized there is an acquaintance between those characters.

Once they are entirely outside the system of causality, they, in reality, automatically lose their physical form. As further, we saw through our investigation most characters' outcomes after they are wholly transcendent/outside of causality lose their physical form, which ends up being impossible (at least there are no anti-feat as far) to be interacted with.

This is my input. I think the issue is right more in rewording rather than removing it. We can reword it and say the outcome of being outside all causality systems is lacking their physical form and being impossible to be interacted with (they are both connected, actually, but ya)
What do you think, @Theglassman12?

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Can somebody help out with the following, so I can send a notification that asks for help with reaching a conclusion here, please?

I would also appreciate if somebody can list the staff and knowledgeable members who have commented here previously.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Okay. Thank you for the information.

Can somebody help out with the following, so I can send a notification that asks for help with reaching a conclusion here, please?

@TheUnshakableOne actually helped you out. Look above ^^

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I simply need a regular list of ALL the relevant staff and knowledgeable members in question.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Dread that was my original proposal yeah, I'm just waiting if anyone else has any objections or if they agree since we're not getting much for votes here. Madoka would be fine given her law of cycle transcending causality rendered her without a form, Akuto I don't know his verse at all so I'd need context for it, and for Anos it's weird given how his verse functions, I'd need more context and scans for that, but that's for later since we're trying to get a general change on Type 5 done before we get into the specifics.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Dread that was my original proposal yeah, I'm just waiting if anyone else has any objections or if they agree since we're not getting much for votes here. Madoka would be fine given her law of cycle transcending causality rendered her without a form, Akuto I don't know his verse at all so I'd need context for it, and for Anos it's weird given how his verse functions, I'd need more context and scans for that, but that's for later since we're trying to get a general change on Type 5 done before we get into the specifics.

I will change the OP thread to the suggested one. It seems most reasonable. Today, I really went through novels/Arcs of those characters, and this is the result I get. Anos's true form got no physical form as far as I am aware, and the concept of causality itself can't even affect his true form.
This should be enough for acc type 5.

As for Akuto, I re-read the last Arc, and I can guarantee you he lost his earth form after being outside of everything including causality/laws of physics. Madoka is a clear one if we apply the new changes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well, I simply need a regular list of ALL the relevant staff and knowledgeable members in question.

Ignoring Oven and DT since they were already pinged. Ignoring myself since I'm already here. Ignoring Ant as he requested this.

@Theglassman12 @Dereck03 @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Ultima_Reality

Agnaa already listed once, Ant. Here is the message.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.

@Agnaa @Dereck03 @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Ultima_Reality @Sir_Ovens @DontTalkDT

What do you all think about this?