At least the final chapter has the name wrong.

This is not fixed.

“Everything in my life is perfect right now.”

I couldn't think about this before, 'cause it was obviously false in 100% of cases. I've gained greater understanding now.

"Perfect" is a 3-place word. It asks if a given state of the world is the best of a given set of states, given some values.
Is perfect(my life right now, ???, my values) true? If we take the minimal set as default, we get perfect(my life right now, my life right now, my values), which is obviously true. This isn't totally unreasonable; there's only one multiverse in the world, and there's only one set of things in it I identify with. It's very.intuitive to just stop there.

The sentence on its own doesn't feel much false or true. But it doesn't feel inconceivable anymore either. 
I feel like I've come to the insight backward. I'll keep meditating, haha.

It’s the “decided” part that’s the problem: beliefs are not supposed to involve any “deciding”.

I can pretty easily shift my perspective such that learning what I'm going to do feels like realizing that my action is overdetermined, rather than like "deciding", for almost every action (and better meditators can get every action to feel this way). What I do to achieve this is: manually redefine my identity to exclude most of my decision-making process.
Similarly, many people include part of their world-model in their identity, such that learning about the world can feel like deciding something. The world-model's doing very similar computation to the planner and whatnot, it seems reasonable for some people to include it.

There’s priors, there’s evidence, and if it feels like there’s a degree of freedom in what to do with those, then something has probably gone wrong.

Can just as easily say "There's beliefs, there's values, and if it feels like there’s a degree of freedom in what to do with those, then something has probably gone wrong.". There's only one optimal decision, given a set of beliefs and values. (Of course we're bounded, but that applies just as well to what we do with beliefs and evidence.)

I always "feel behind".

I think this is caused by mistaking a 3-place word for a 2-place word. "Behind" takes something like arguments 'current state', 'value function', 'schedule distribution'. I think you've misplaced the schedule distribution that's supposed to go here, and are using some silly replacement, because you forgot it was an argument that mattered.

I changed my mind; at least in the case of my sharing information with you, if you were perfectly trustworthy you'd totally just defer to my beliefs for not making me worse off as a result. But, as you said, plausibly even in this easy case being perfect is way too hobbling for humans 'cause of infohazards.

Oliver said "The promise that Mikhail asked me to make was, as far as I understood it, to 'not use any of the information in the conversation in any kind of adversarial way towards the people who the information is about'.".

Oliver understood you to be asking him not to use the information to hurt anyone involved, which is way more restrictive, and in fact impossible for a human to do perfectly.
Unless he meant something more specific by "any kind of adversarial way", which promise wouldn't get you what you want.

If you meant the reasonable thing, and said it clearly, I agree Oliver's misunderstanding is surprising and probably symptomatic of not reading planecrash.

I agree that promise is overly restrictive.
'Don't make my helping you have been a bad idea for me' is a more reasonable version, but I assume you're already doing that in your expectation, and it makes sense for different people to take the other's expectation into account different amounts for this purpose.

I agree none of this is relevant to anything, I was just looking for intrinsically interesting thoughts about optimal chess.

I thought at least CDT could be approximated pretty well with a bounded variant; causal reasoning is a normal thing to do. FDT is harder, but some humans seem to find it a useful perspective, so presumably you can have algorithms meaningfully closer or further, and that is a useful proxy for something.
Actually never mind, I have no experience with the formalisms.

I guess "choose the move that maximises your expected value" is technically compatible with FDT, you're right.
It seems like the obvious way to describe what CDT does, and a really unnatural way to describe what FDT does, so I got confused.

Your description of EVGOO is incorrect; you describe a Causal Decision Theory algorithm, but (assuming the opponent also knows your strategy 'cause otherwise you're cheating) what you want is LDT.
(Assuming they only see each others' policy for that game, so an agent acting as eg CDT is indistinguishable from real CDT, then LDT is optimal even against such fantastic pathological opponents as "Minimax if my opponent looks like it's following the algorithm that you the reader are hoping is optimal, otherwise resign" (or, if they can see each others' policy for the whole universe of agents you're testing, then LDT at least gets the maximum aggregate score).)