I notice I’m confused. I can’t tell if I just disagree or if I’ve missed a big part of the debate. This doesn’t seem to address causality at all, only low-information trades, which I think have very little controversy.
“acausal” means “no causal channel”, in all the writing I’ve noticed about acausal trade and acausal blackmail. That is, no direct NOR indirect information or influence on outcomes, only pure-logic priori modeling.
I think your model misses the core of a normal trade—it has nothing to do with initiation nor verification. It has to do with TRADE. Party A takes an action that causes party B to take a reciprocal action, which neither of them would take without the other. There’s usually agreement and verification in it, but the core is the quid pro quo.
Your examples all include some causality (you give an apple, a charity gets some money). But then your objections are about information, not about causality.
I notice I’m confused. I can’t tell if I just disagree or if I’ve missed a big part of the debate. This doesn’t seem to address causality at all, only low-information trades, which I think have very little controversy.
“acausal” means “no causal channel”, in all the writing I’ve noticed about acausal trade and acausal blackmail. That is, no direct NOR indirect information or influence on outcomes, only pure-logic priori modeling.
I think your model misses the core of a normal trade—it has nothing to do with initiation nor verification. It has to do with TRADE. Party A takes an action that causes party B to take a reciprocal action, which neither of them would take without the other. There’s usually agreement and verification in it, but the core is the quid pro quo.
Your examples all include some causality (you give an apple, a charity gets some money). But then your objections are about information, not about causality.