if creating a simulation has acausal trade (superrationality) implications, then so too does the act of creating a child.
So magic could make the fantasy world possible. Invoking the decentralization of the arcane to stop civilization development. But wouldn't your scenario get harder and harder to achieve every time? Arcane knowledge would become rarer and rarer which each civilization reset, as mages drop out. You'd be left with a few mages who refuse to share any knowledge, and may even go out of the way to hunt down and stifle independent mages, and thus those civilization-wide accidents would go down in frequency until secular technology (which flies under the archmages' radars) can achieve the familiar growth curve. The archmages would end up losing the "fantasy world" in the end.
While it does seem like it's fair game for people to actively maintain the fantasy world's steady state (since our world's lack of steady state uses people too), I view the two as different forms of participation. While the later, our world, is acutely participatory, the fantasy world would need to be chronically participatory. The maintainers don't just invent a thing and be done, they need to keep inventing new and new things, forever, as the impending method by which the fantasy world will start Developing changes. The changers have a much easier job, and they only need to succeed once, whenever: just get onto one of the infinitely many possible development tracks and the maintainers lose. Not even that world's god/archmage could hold on forever.
As for what those barriers are, I'd like to hear a specific example. Magic-based barriers included. I can't think of any barrier that will work forever. The best one I came up with is a kind of technology trap: society forgets how to make computers (amnesia magic), but there are still millions of over produced but good computers available to buy so no company puts in the research and development funding into figuring out how to make them from scratch, so you end up in a weird development trap.
Are fantasy worlds possible? I don't mean are they physically possible, but whether there exists some "fantasy world" economic/technological steady state that doesn't just devolve back into what our world is today: one where staple crops are dirt cheap, the map of the world is complete, advancement can't be stopped, etc. Basically, what are the environmental conditions necessary to stifle development and maintain scarcity of modern comforts? I think this is a Hard Problem. In fact, my intuition is that fantasy worlds don't just don't exist, they don't exist even in theory. If they were to exist, then they would take active effort to maintain; they would be artificial. A hidden team of "maintainers" would have to be assigned by God to each fantasy world to actively monitor and take ruthless action against any potential Henry Ford that might rise up. In that sense, we truly do live in a Godless world.
What are some automata designs that are robust against chaos? As in, if there's a source of randomness somewhere on the map, are there any automata that can survive/feed off it?
Just because you think something is bad, doesn't make that thing bad. If you thought a billion dollar company was bad, does that make the company bad? No. The company is worth a billion dollars, which is an objective fact, regardless of your moral opinion.
Conversely, my opinion that children are good isn't just an opinion, it's an objective fact. It's an objective fact because all moral goodness necessitates the existence of children.
There are child slaves in the world, but that's not what you're trying to say, right? What do you mean by 'children are slaves'? Like, they lack agency because they are still too inept physically, mentally, and even legally? Sure, I guess that's a type of philosophical slavery. But for children it's temporary, whereas for the nonexistent that slave state is permanent. Children overcome their slavery traits every day until they finally become adults. Every new day is a celebration because that's how fast children grow and develop.
For the nonexistent, for dead matter, that slave state is permanent. At least until it can become alive and attain agency. If your terminal value is to "end slavery", then turning dead matter into living matter should be your number one goal. Imagine a world so technologically advanced that even every single rain drop falling from the sky has first been given consciousness and agency and decision power over what it should do next. Where every stone has at one point decided to be a stone. I want to live in such a world. A world of agency and qualia and awareness.
So children are good, and just because not everyone agrees on that doesn't somehow make children not good. Not everyone agrees on auction prices either, but the auction price is what it is because of objective laws of economics. Same too for values and morals.
I don't see any discussion in the Cryptocurrency space about how Proof of Stake allows for 51% of the stake to eventually accumulate into 99% of the stake. Being chosen to receive a coin makes it more likely that you'll be chosen again. This way, the relative distribution of coin ownership will become more and more extreme as time passes.Proof of Burn-Stake seems to avoid this "issue". Because being chosen to have your coin burned makes it less likely that you'll be chosen again. This way, the relative distribution of coin ownership won't change.
But there's no method to smooth out the relative distribution of coin ownership (so that all coin holders eventually have the same amount). This one-way nature of distribution evolution is interesting and I'd like to read more about it.
How do I start acausally cooperating with my future self? The spiritualists seem to call this "ascending to 4D energy". How about with my counterfactual selves? The equivalent of "ascending to 5D energy" in spiritualist speak. I need practical and specific instructions.
It seems to me like there's a lot of "magic" involved in anthropic arguments. I still don't get why, but it does seem intuitively important to me that the time it took for abiogenesis to occur is also the time it will take for Earth to become uninhabitable (abioeschasis?). It might just be a quirk of statistics where sufficiently-hard evolutionary steps create such a strong "anthropic shadow" (survivorship bias in our sample of 1), that each really hard evolutionary step can be assumed to have had taken an equal amount of time. But I'm probably way wrong on this.
The fact that we ourselves are in an era with 400 million years of terrestrial habitability left, about the duration of one hard step, seems important to me. What is this final hard step? Though my intuitions are very anti-Copernican already so I'm biased.