Doesn't the paper cited here on acausal romance imply that gains from acausal trade are incoherent?
The fact that I can imagine someone who can imagine exactly me doesn't seem like it implies that I can make material gains by acting in reference to that inaccessible other.
What am I misunderstanding?
That's the joke. The whole paper is a "Modest Proposal" style satire.
It's designed to tear down modal realism by taking it to the most absurd extreme. I also detected hints of playing on the Ontological Argument for the existence of God.
From the last thread:
Meta: