Fair enough; the low density of ideas was a concern I had also. I'd intended the extra words to help guide intuition away from common distractors and make it more widely accessible, but I'm not sure I succeeded on either count.

It's really only about three paragraphs worth of content. I should probably write it down again in a more formal style.

Conditional on our current understanding of the material and non-ideal nature of the universe:

(1) "Ought" is: all of our best evidence indicates that it's a given, without any supporting teleology, unless you ascribe not just material causation but also teleological-quality purpose to self-referential function optimization.

(2) Life is a function-optimization process for creating more life of sufficiently similar type (a type of fixed point in the laws of the universe).

(3) Therefore, as living beings, questions about the meaning of life--what is our ultimate "ought"--terminate in the realization that the very sense of "ought" itself is just a sophisticated way to create more (sufficiently alike) life, and therefore that this is the most general answer that it is possible to get.

This can and should be fleshed out with more rigor, and to an extent I did in this article but not in a compact way. Anyway, that's the point, in three (or four, depending how you count) sentences.