• 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.

Acausality & Time Paradox Immunity

Messages
267
Reaction score
300
Hello!
I hope everyone is having a great day.

permission by Antvasima

Introduction​



In this thread, I intend to propose a full overhaul of the Acausality page.

Why change it?

The current page is not good, mostly due to vague definitions and inconsistent terminologies. Many of the existing types are unclear, open to multiple interpretations and in some cases not even directly related to causality. Most feel arbitrarily with no logical grounding.
I'll further explain these problems and my methods to solve them later on.

This thread will have four sections:

1- Deletions : Removing types that are unnecessary or not truly related to Acausality.
2- Reworks : Revising the descriptions of major Acausality types to make them more accurate.
3- Additions : Introducing a new type of Acausality.
4- Time Paradox : Bringing back Time Paradox Immunity as it deserves its own dedicated page.

Blogs needed for this thread:

Before we start, I would like to show my gratitude for Shiedaisthepeak(making the time paradox immunity page) and TheNothing84(for inputs they gave me privately).

Deletions​



Current Type 3 Acausality​

First let us take a look at how it is defined :
Type 3: Temporal Permanence: Characters with this type of Acausality are incredibly difficult to kill, as other versions of themselves - from other points in time and/or from other universes - can survive the destruction of the "original" and act in their place. This also grants them immunity to changes in the past.
This has little to no connection to causality. What exactly is the "acausal" thing here? Nothing. It's a glorified form of immortality where the user stays alive by replacing the original self or having other existences.
Since this type lacks any real justification to be considered a distinct type of Acausality, I propose we remove it from the Acausality page entirely. But where should we dump it? obviously the immortality page.
I recommend either introducing it as a new type of immortality or having it as a subset of Type 6 Immortality.
Let's take a look at Type 6 immortality :
6: Parasitic: The character is able to attain a sort of immortality by abandoning bodies whenever necessary to transfer their consciousness to another body, whether they are possessing someone else or switching to a backup body.
Similar, isn't it?
Now obviously, it's not a 100% copy but Type 3 Acausality generally has no significant relation to causality to warrant being its own distinct type. It seems more like a higer range for Type 6 Immortality. I propose merging the two and reworking Type 6 Immortality into something like this :
6: Parasitic Immortality: Characters attain immortality by transferring their consciousness into other bodies when necessary through possession, shifting to backup bodies, or similar methods. This allows them to survive the destruction of their body.
In more advanced cases, characters exist across multiple timelines, universes or bodies simultaneously. Even if one version is erased, another continues the job.

Current Type 1 & 2 Acausality​

The definitions first :
Type 1: Time Paradox Immunity: Characters with this type of Acausality are rendered immune to changes in the past and standard temporal paradoxes, but remain just as vulnerable in the present and can be affected by normal Causality Manipulation and similar abilities.
Type 2: Temporal Singularity: Characters with this type of Acausality do not exist in either the past or the future, only the present. This means they cannot be affected by changes to the past, while also making them resistant to Precognition that works by viewing the future, as they do not exist within it, and Fate Manipulation, for the same reason. In essence, they are able to choose their own fates, but they remain just as vulnerable at the point in time in which they do exist.
The first type is simply a form of time paradox immunity. It doesn’t need to be its own type of acausality, since time paradox immunity is already a well established concept in various works of fiction. This is why I will propose the (re)addition of Time Paradox Immunity.
Type 2 is just an extension of Type 1. In this case, the character simply doesn’t exist in the past or future so same fate as Type 1 acausality will happen to it (Time Paradox Immunity).

Reworks​



The New Type 4 (2)​

The New Type 4, but if we remove the first three types and add the one I’ll introduce later, this will become our new Type 2.
But for now let’s take a look at the current Type 4 and examine it.
Type 4: Irregular Causality: Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This has the potential to grant them resistances to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation, and Precognition, among others, depending on its shown capabilities which should be specified on the given page.
Characters of this nature don’t follow standard causality. Instead they are bound to a different, irregular system of cause and effect. Because of this, they are immune to abilities like Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation and Precognition as long as those abilities cannot interact with the alternate causal system they operate under.
Now here’s the funny thing, by definition, these characters are completely and fundamentally outside the standard system of causality. They exist independently from it, operating on a separate system of cause and effect. But, according to current wiki standards (from what I seen, been told, and read), in a example like Low 1-C causality manipulation vs Low 2-C character with Type 4 Acausality, causality manipulation wins.
That’s absurd and doesn’t make any sense.
A Type 4 acausal character is, by nature, entirely disconnected from the regular framework of causality and its rules, including all of its extensions and complexities. They cannot be affected by any ability that only manipulates the standard system of causality, no matter how strong it is (unless negated obv). The only way they can be affected is if the ability also manipulates the irregular causality they are bound to, or if a qualitatively higher form of causality forces them.
I think my issue here and the main problem with how this type is currently handled is clear.
So, here’s my proposed solution as shown in the blog:
Type 2 - Irregular Causality : Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This has the potential to grant them resistances to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate Manipulation and Precognition, among others, depending on its shown capabilities which should be specified on the given page.
It must be noted that immunity to relevant abilities shouldn't generally be affected by quantitative changes within a specific level of reality. For example, a Low 2-C character with this type of Acausality would be immune even to Low 1-A Causality Manipulation of similar nature. They may still be vulnerable to manipulation of a system other than the one they're immune to, or one which comes from a qualitatively superior force.
NOTE : THIS DOES NOT GRANT TIERING AND WILL NOT UPSCALE ANYONE.

The New Type 5 (3)​

Following Irregular Causality, this would be the new Type 3 if the deletions and additions are applied.
But first let’s see the old definition.
Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. 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.
The problem is pretty obvious. What the hell does "completely independent" or "unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality" actually mean? Are these characters superior since the type is literally named Transcendence, just because they’re not bound by standard causality? If that’s the case, then we’re simply describing Irregular Causality. or are they beings from higher dimensions who cannot be affected by lower-dimensional and lesser complex form of the causality? That would fall under the new Type 1, so we can set that aside. It also can’t mean the character is fully transcends the concept of causality itself, because that would mean Tier 0 which is impossible for anything/anyone below that level.
So here is my proposal:
This type should be only for qualitative superiority, similar to Type 3 BDE. These characters transcend causality not just by being outside or irregular to it, but by being fundamentally above it, due to a qualitative gap. This makes them immune and immutable with respect to any form of causality within a specific level of reality.
It would make sense to make Type 5 Acausality (new Type 3) only for characters which show qualitative superiority, starting from at least 1-A or Type 3 BDE (These two should be directly linked).
So here’s the new version of this Type, which I call:
Type 3 - Transcendental Causality Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of all cause and effect systems of a specific reality, as they exist within or abide by a qualitatively higher notion of causality. Interacting with such characters is typically impossible for beings bound to lower realities, and these characters are immutable to any influence from such beings.
It must be kept in mind, that these characters are still mutable, but only through the Transcendental Causality to which they are bound.

Additions



“Elyar what about characters who are stated to be outside causality and possess higher existence, but aren't qualitatively superior or from an irregular causal system?”
Well, that’s exactly what the new Type 1 is for!
The new Type 1 will be for characters who are immune to a specific dimensional level of causality manipulation, either because they possess higher-dimensional existence or are simply unaffected by it due to their nature(disconnected from causality but not like Type 1 BDE). This gives us a way to filter out certain vague scans and HDE based interpretations which were used to justify the old Type 4 or Type 5 for some characters, and have them be Type 1.
Like I said before, Type 1 is for characters who are immune to causality manipulation because of what they are, not because of qualitative superiority or being bound to a separate causal system. It only applies if the character:
  • Is stated to be immune to causality, as they exists on a higher dimensional compared to the ability in question
  • Is stated to be immune to causality , as they are disconnected from causality but not in a way that implies qualitatively superior, irregular causality or HDE.
And to be clear do not confuse this with resistance, which is a separate thing entirely.
So here is the new addition I propose:
Type 1 - Dimensional Disjunction Causality : Characters with this type of Acausality exist outside or beyond the bounds of causality restricted to a specific dimensional level, not due to qualitative superiority, but due to operating within a higher temporal structure meaning a more complex topology. As a result, they are unaffected by causality manipulation that originates from lower-dimensions not aligned with their own.
A being existing in a higher dimension (such as 5D) may be entirely unaffected by 4D causality simply because the former would operate under a more complex form of the causality.
It's important to note that such characters could still be vulnerable to causality manipulation from beings existing in the same dimensional complexity or one that interacts with their own. Their immunity is based strictly on dimensional separation, not qualitative superiority.

Time Paradox



I propose re-adding Time Paradox Immunity, which previously existed on the wiki. It should be brought back as:
  • The current Type 1 and Type 2 Acausality are suited for Time Paradox Immunity, and they lack sufficient justification to be treated as distinct types of acausality.
  • Time Paradox Immunity is a well-known and widely used trope across various forms of media. Its popularity and frequent usage warrants a dedicated page of its own.
The blog for the the Time Paradox immunity is linked at the beginning of the thread.


Thanks for reading!
I would appreciate any input.

Voting
AGREE : FinePoint(Type 4 & 5 Rework, New Type), DontTalkDT(Possibly Type 4), Antvasima(Possibly Type 4), Phoenks(Type 4 & 5 Rework, New Type)
DISAGREE : FinePoint(Deletions of Type 1,2 & 3), DontTalkDT(Almost Everything), Antvasima(Almost Everything), Phoenks(Deletions of Type 1,2 & 3
NEUTEAL :
 
Last edited:
BTW, Type 4 Acausality no longer provides resistance to anything as per recent CRTs.
I do remember something like that yeah. But it was poorly applied to the page and I'll change it completely anyways.
 
Based on this I'd suggest we remove any mentions of Type 2 Temporal Paradox Immunity granting resistance.
Apologies if I misunderstood (since you mentioned Type 4), Are you suggesting that we remove the immunities from Type 2 Temporal Paradox Immunity and only apply them if they are demonstrated by the character?
If so then sure I can agree to that.
 
Apologies if I misunderstood (since you mentioned Type 4), Are you suggesting that we remove the immunities from Type 2 Temporal Paradox Immunity and only apply them if they are demonstrated by the character?
If so then sure I can agree to that.
Yeah, that was the idea with nerfing Acausality Type 4, same principle here.
 
Regarding what KLOL said about type 2:

Isn't it natural that a character who only exists in the present would be immune to precognition, retrocognition, and similar abilities? Given they literally have no past or future to observe in the first place. If anything, those abilities being able to work on such a character would either be an anti-feat, or suggests that such abilities are more esoteric in nature.

Btw, I think a form of acausality should be made which encompasses characters who are unaffected by change within the scope of their reality. Such as Regulus, who has a form of invulnerability based on being freed from outside changes. To the point that he can't even get wet in water and whatnot. Perhaps one of the definitions could be extended to include such a thing. Or maybe Type 4 already just includes that.

Current Type 3 can probably be removed. It's an extremely rare ability and yeah it's more of an immortality than it is Acausality.

It seems like you've changed Type 5 to just being BDE Type 3 version of acausality. I guess we're bringing back all the old 1-A-only abilities. I'd personally say it's fine but I know some people dislike that.

I'm not sure that it is worth separating Types 1 & 2 into their own pages simply because it would take some time to change all the profiles involved. Acausality encompassing time paradox immunity is fine imo.

With your newly suggested Dimensional Disjunction, I'm fine with it since it seems to be for characters who scale to and operate on higher temporal dimensions. But it should be noted to specifically only apply to temporal dimensions. Just being spatially 11-D doesn't mean you operate on 11-D or 12-D time. Like, for m-theory, 1 dimension of time still encompasses the other 10 spatial dimensions.

Id personally do this:

Type 1: Circular Paradox Immunity
Type 2: Temporal Paradox Immunity
Type 3: Dimensional Disjunction Causality
Type 4: Irregular Causality
Type 5: Transcendental Causality

This would make for less work having to be done overall. You replace Type 3 (Which is already exceedingly rare) and make a couple of definitional changes.

Overall though, I agree with the thread.
 
Regarding what KLOL said about type 2:

Isn't it natural that a character who only exists in the present would be immune to precognition, retrocognition, and similar abilities? Given they literally have no past or future to observe in the first place. If anything, those abilities being able to work on such a character would either be an anti-feat, or suggests that such abilities are more esoteric in nature.
I honestly don't have a horse in this race. It was originally Bobsican and Deagon who assumed that such resistances were based on baseless assumptions and that separate feats would be needed for them.

Deagon is now gone obviously, so I'll let @Bobsican elaborate.
 
Sure. I just have no idea how you can have a type that is literally "I do not possess a future or past" and then say that they aren't inherently immune to an ability that is literally "I can see your past and future."
 
Sure. I just have no idea how you can have a type that is literally "I do not possess a future or past" and then say that they aren't inherently immune to an ability that is literally "I can see your past and future."
A lot of other people feel the same as you.
 
Disagree with the Type 3 arguments. Cause and effect works in a fashion that usually when you die at point A all past versions of you will eventually die at point A and all future versions will be dead.
If your future versions of you are not dead, then that means the cause (dying at point A) didn't have an effect of them where it should. Textbook acausality.
If the past versions suddenly don't end up at point A anymore where they should, then that means they stepped out of the original chain of cause and effect that led to point A to begin with, which again is acausality.

Disagree with Type 1 argument. Time Paradoxes are textbook causality paradoxes. There is absolutely no reason to suddenly separate it now. It would be separating textbook acausal behaviour from acausality for no good reason. Massive amount of work to fix something that isn't even wrong.

Disagree with Type 2. If you exist in a single point of time, then you have no cause nor any effect in the traditional sense. Causality is clearly broken by this. So this is acausality.
Obviously it also isn't the same as Type 1. Countless Type 1 characters have a past and a future.

The New Type 4 stuff is ok, with additional the caveat that it falls flat should multiple time dimensions be involved, due to lack of evidence on the acausality part. But if we are talking only higher spatial dimensions, then sure.

Disagree with the New Type 5 stuff. You don't need qualitative superiority to reach it at all. It's a special form of altered causality, yes, all of acausality could be argued to be in a sense. However, it is a special type of following an altered causality that doesn't include any causal change leading to an effect on you. That is not qualitative superiority, however. It's just regular hax that doesn't permit damage. Not fundamentally different to what physics manipulation may accomplish in a more limited scope.

Disagree with Dimensional Disjunction Causality. That addition exists to fix the error introduced in the Type 5 change. Ultimately, both of those are just mixing acausality with dimensions and qualitative superiority for no reason.
 
Btw, I think a form of acausality should be made which encompasses characters who are unaffected by change within the scope of their reality. Such as Regulus, who has a form of invulnerability based on being freed from outside changes. To the point that he can't even get wet in water and whatnot. Perhaps one of the definitions could be extended to include such a thing. Or maybe Type 4 already just includes that.
I think Dimensional Disjunction can work for fellas like him.
I'm not sure that it is worth separating Types 1 & 2 into their own pages simply because it would take some time to change all the profiles involved. Acausality encompassing time paradox immunity is fine imo.
I knew most people would have a problem with the editing which is fine. I think it can solved with a fandom bot (idios has one).
With your newly suggested Dimensional Disjunction, I'm fine with it since it seems to be for characters who scale to and operate on higher temporal dimensions. But it should be noted to specifically only apply to temporal dimensions. Just being spatially 11-D doesn't mean you operate on 11-D or 12-D time. Like, for m-theory, 1 dimension of time still encompasses the other 10 spatial dimensions.
Noted.
Id personally do this:

Type 1: Circular Paradox Immunity
Type 2: Temporal Paradox Immunity
Type 3: Dimensional Disjunction Causality
Type 4: Irregular Causality
Type 5: Transcendental Causality

This would make for less work having to be done overall. You replace Type 3 (Which is already exceedingly rare) and make a couple of definitional changes.
This can also work and I'm fine with it tho I would still push for a Time Paradox page.
Overall though, I agree with the thread.
Thank you.
 
With DT's elaboration and further thought, I actually think Type 3 should stay.

Essentially, I realized it would mostly apply to characters who have some form of synchronized-existence across time. Since they can persist even if you kill them in a singular point of time.

Killing them at any one interval of time won't ever get rid of them since they exist in infinitely other points. It's sorta like pseudo-omnipresence/multi-location. You kill them in the past, it doesn't matter since they are everywhere else already. Same with any present or future.

You see that with characters like Solaris, who is a pretty blatant example.

I do still agree that Acausality Type 5, if it is going to be "Transcendent Causality/Causality Transcendence" should be a BDE Type 3 thing. I mean, that is practically how it is treated already anyways. With how strict the standards for it are.

I think the Temporal Dimension/Dimensional Disjointed acausality should be introduced as a substitute with less crazy standards.
 
Disagree with the Type 3 arguments. Cause and effect works in a fashion that usually when you die at point A all past versions of you will eventually die at point A and all future versions will be dead.
If your future versions of you are not dead, then that means the cause (dying at point A) didn't have an effect of them where it should. Textbook acausality.
If the past versions suddenly don't end up at point A anymore where they should, then that means they stepped out of the original chain of cause and effect that led to point A to begin with, which again is acausality.
This sounds like what is currently defined as Type 1 Acausality, which would already be covered in the Time Paradox Immunity page. While you could call it "textbook" Acausality, it also fits the definitions of textbook Immortality and Time Paradox Immunity. Not being affected by the past or alternate timelines is a well known and popular form of Time Paradox Immunity.
Disagree with Type 1 argument. Time Paradoxes are textbook causality paradoxes. There is absolutely no reason to suddenly separate it now. It would be separating textbook acausal behaviour from acausality for no good reason. Massive amount of work to fix something that isn't even wrong.
I could argue that abilities like Fate Manipulation or Probability Manipulation are also related to Causality Manipulation, so should we just merge them too? no. But like I said, if editing the page is really that much of a problem (even with the fandom bots), then sure we can keep it as is.
I would still push for a dedicated Time Paradox page(yes time paradoxes are directly connected to causality) but they are unique and popular enough to have their own page.
Disagree with Type 2. If you exist in a single point of time, then you have no cause nor any effect in the traditional sense. Causality is clearly broken by this. So this is acausality.
Obviously it also isn't the same as Type 1. Countless Type 1 characters have a past and a future.
Something like BDE Type 1 also breaks causality but it isn’t considered a form of Acausality is it? Also when I said same I meant that it can be placed in the same page as Type 1, not that it is = to the Type 1 which is seperated in the Time Paradox Immunity blog.
Disagree with the New Type 5 stuff. You don't need qualitative superiority to reach it at all. It's a special form of altered causality, yes, all of acausality could be argued to be in a sense. However, it is a special type of following an altered causality that doesn't include any causal change leading to an effect on you. That is not qualitative superiority, however. It's just regular hax that doesn't permit damage. Not fundamentally different to what physics manipulation may accomplish in a more limited scope.
As I mentioned in the thread, this is just your interpretation of it (which mostly is invulnerability). Many users, both on the wiki and outside of it, are confused and have a variety of opinions on this. Which is why I’m proposing we make it unique to qualitative superiority, which makes the most sense considering the NAME of the type itself and how most people are likely to interpret it.
 
Disagree with the Type 3 arguments. Cause and effect works in a fashion that usually when you die at point A all past versions of you will eventually die at point A and all future versions will be dead.
If your future versions of you are not dead, then that means the cause (dying at point A) didn't have an effect of them where it should. Textbook acausality.
If the past versions suddenly don't end up at point A anymore where they should, then that means they stepped out of the original chain of cause and effect that led to point A to begin with, which again is acausality.

Disagree with Type 1 argument. Time Paradoxes are textbook causality paradoxes. There is absolutely no reason to suddenly separate it now. It would be separating textbook acausal behaviour from acausality for no good reason. Massive amount of work to fix something that isn't even wrong.

Disagree with Type 2. If you exist in a single point of time, then you have no cause nor any effect in the traditional sense. Causality is clearly broken by this. So this is acausality.
Obviously it also isn't the same as Type 1. Countless Type 1 characters have a past and a future.

The New Type 4 stuff is ok, with additional the caveat that it falls flat should multiple time dimensions be involved, due to lack of evidence on the acausality part. But if we are talking only higher spatial dimensions, then sure.

Disagree with the New Type 5 stuff. You don't need qualitative superiority to reach it at all. It's a special form of altered causality, yes, all of acausality could be argued to be in a sense. However, it is a special type of following an altered causality that doesn't include any causal change leading to an effect on you. That is not qualitative superiority, however. It's just regular hax that doesn't permit damage. Not fundamentally different to what physics manipulation may accomplish in a more limited scope.

Disagree with Dimensional Disjunction Causality. That addition exists to fix the error introduced in the Type 5 change. Ultimately, both of those are just mixing acausality with dimensions and qualitative superiority for no reason.
DontTalk makes sense to me as well. Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️
 
Have y'all asked for permission from staff? You can't comment on Staff-Only threads without approval.
 
I honestly don't have a horse in this race. It was originally Bobsican and Deagon who assumed that such resistances were based on baseless assumptions and that separate feats would be needed for them.

Deagon is now gone obviously, so I'll let @Bobsican elaborate.
I and Deagonx went over type 4 on that regard, not type 2, type 2 granting certain "immunities" inherently is fine and hasn't been challenged by us from what I recall, that issue applies more to type 4 as concluded here.

More specifically, type 2 is way more concrete on its nature, allowing it to have fair lines of thought to conclude the implications the nature of a type 2 acausal character would have against certain abilities like future-seeing Precognition or Fate Manip, meanwhile type 4 is a glorified catch-all bag for any vague case of a character merely having an unconventional interaction with cause and effect, with the key thing being that it's the same as regular causality by default unless elaborated on, which is why it grants nothing by default, how exactly a character is different from regular causality (especially in the practical sense) is something to be explained before jumping to conclusions.

Beyond that, given that I was asked to comment, I share the same thoughts as DontTalk's last post in here.
 
I essentially agree with DontTalk as well, although I'm not a fan of the way the proposal is currently worded.
It must be noted that such characters would be immune to all complexities and extensions of these abilities within a specific level of reality. For example, a Low 2-C character with this type of Acausality would be immune even to Low 1-A Causality Manipulation. They would be vulnerable only if the opposing ability specifically manipulates their unique system of causality or comes from a qualitatively superior force.
"All complexities and extensions of these abilities" is too broad and includes numerous nuances which would likely be exceptions to consider, for example there being multiple temporal dimensions as DontTalk pointed out.

As an extension to that, any system of causality beyond the norm which is established could throw a wrench into it.

I think a far fairer wording and one less likely to lead to confusion would be:
It must be noted that immunity to relevant abilities shouldn't generally be affected by quantitative changes within a specific level of reality. For example, a Low 2-C character with this type of Acausality would be immune even to Low 1-A Causality Manipulation of similar nature. They may still be vulnerable to manipulation of a system other than the one they're immune to, or one which comes from a qualitatively superior force.
 
Apologies on my behalf, I been (and still am) quite busy.
"All complexities and extensions of these abilities" is too broad and includes numerous nuances which would likely be exceptions to consider, for example there being multiple temporal dimensions as DontTalk pointed out.

As an extension to that, any system of causality beyond the norm which is established could throw a wrench into it.
I would like to clarify a few points to avoid misunderstandings. In my vision and proposal, the "irregular" form of causality would also be immune to higher temporal dimensions, since I don’t consider adding an extra temporal dimension to a causality system enough to make it "irregular". (which is what the new type is for)

Also, yes I prefer your wording. it is more clearer than mine. Thanks!
I essentially agree with DontTalk as well, although I'm not a fan of the way the proposal is currently worded.
this aside, you share the same opinion for the rest of the CRT(new Type 5 and etc)?
 
I essentially agree with DontTalk as well, although I'm not a fan of the way the proposal is currently worded.

"All complexities and extensions of these abilities" is too broad and includes numerous nuances which would likely be exceptions to consider, for example there being multiple temporal dimensions as DontTalk pointed out.

As an extension to that, any system of causality beyond the norm which is established could throw a wrench into it.

I think a far fairer wording and one less likely to lead to confusion would be:
@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to take a look at FinePoint's suggested adjustments here please? 🙏
 
I'd say that deleting the first three types and subsequently renaming the later types would be an absurd amount of unnecessary work, and as outlined by DT they're not incorrect anyway. The changes to Type 4 seem reasonable at a glance.

DT already put it all very well, of course.
 
Back
Top