My take is that that unfortunately, I don’t expect high-level order/useful abstractions for acausal trade in full generality
Certainly possible! Some of the stronger arguments for abstraction I have are rooted in this universe’s physics, and while I see some speculative ways to generalize them to Tegmark IV, it’s certainly possible that the things outside are not well-abstractible.
Thankfully, the point is academic, since all the acausal stuff is above our pay grade anyway.
Another area where I’m skeptical is the claim that human morality is best explained by acausal trade
Does the post argue that? My interpretation is that it draws an analogy between acausal trade and moral philosophy, not tries to explain the latter via the former. E. g.:
I’m merely saying that among humanity’s collective endeavors thus far, moral philosophy — and to some extent, theology — is what most closely resembles the process of writing down an argument that self-validates on the topic of what {{beings reflecting on what beings are supposed to do}} are supposed to do.
Certainly possible! Some of the stronger arguments for abstraction I have are rooted in this universe’s physics, and while I see some speculative ways to generalize them to Tegmark IV, it’s certainly possible that the things outside are not well-abstractible.
Thankfully, the point is academic, since all the acausal stuff is above our pay grade anyway.
Does the post argue that? My interpretation is that it draws an analogy between acausal trade and moral philosophy, not tries to explain the latter via the former. E. g.: