I think there are more fundamental problem with this sort of argument: staples and paperclips aren’t going to be the same resources involved. So assuming a completely symmetric situation isn’t going to happen. Worse, as the resource difference gets larger, one of two will have more resources free to work on self-modification.
I assume symmetry to get acausal trade as I could model it, then broke acausal trade while preserving the symmetry. This seems to imply that the method will break acausal trade in general.
I think there are more fundamental problem with this sort of argument: staples and paperclips aren’t going to be the same resources involved. So assuming a completely symmetric situation isn’t going to happen. Worse, as the resource difference gets larger, one of two will have more resources free to work on self-modification.
I assume symmetry to get acausal trade as I could model it, then broke acausal trade while preserving the symmetry. This seems to imply that the method will break acausal trade in general.
Ah, that makes sense.