"...I think our people could legitimately not optimize for their True Dead ending up in worlds they'd decrypt faster if they knew the hidden history. That seems like a legitimately hard call. By the same token, you could say that there is an afterlife in dath ilan, which most people didn't know about and our Keepers probably did infer in a very general way, namely, people like me ending up places that turned out to be here. It's not Hell, but I'm not having much fun right now. And Civilization did the correct thing about that by cryopreserving almost-everyone so that they almost-entirely wouldn't end up in places nobody could predict."
"I think - this is hard to describe. Our world's physics, 'laws of reality', is much more closed, 'systemically closed', than Golarion's physics. We know all of it, it is a single equation. It is contrary to the character of that physical law for us to easily trade with other stars. There's - when I came to Golarion, I didn't worry about the correct things, because Golarion was such a different place. If you were suddenly transported to dath ilan, you wouldn't worry about the correct things either."
"We have thought of possibilities like those, as appropriate to dath ilan rather than Golarion, and defended against them. There is a powerful beacon far away where it would not be easy to destroy, emitting an invisible force akin to light but wider. That beacon, it's been passed down, marks the moment when history was erased, and sends signals spaced in a way that makes it easy to identify when that moment was. There is only one beacon like that, not eighty, and it's very loud so we wouldn't miss the others. If somebody said we had to erase our past again and destroy the beacon, I think people would be suspicious at that point. That's the point where it starts to look like somebody is trying to hide something, or fool future generations, and not just respond to a strange threat in a way where they're happy to let you take all the precautions required to make sure nobody's fooling anybody."
"I think the basic idea you're missing here is possibly something like - the degree to which it's possible for a huge number of people to make a decision, and know that it was their decision, using paper-cryptographic-protocols and so on. You think in terms of a small number of people being able to command the rest. Not in terms of an argument where everyone evaluates it and comes to the same answer because everyone has been trained in the same rules of generally valid argumentation, and then people can act in unison from there."