We can start by asking where the mind arose from or rather what caused the mind. I think the most logical answer is that the mind was built to handle the totality. the mind is the key hole to the key that is the universe. it is an imprint of the universe where the two met like two halves of a broken sphere meet perfectly even if they join along a complementary "jagged" line.
This leads to a statement that (i think) goes against QSR, that if causality is a function of the mind , and the mind is a function of the universe, then causality is a function of the universe (by transitivity) and therefore can exist without the mind.
For the mind to be able to "create" causality it must have this ability given to it from the universe , and the complement of causality is itself causality , then the universe should contain causality in its ontology objectively.
These views come from the following statements elsewhere by David:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're trying to say that there is no beginning or end to anything because any divisions we perceive in Nature are own mental creations. "Cause" and "effect" are also mental creations, so in that sense cause and effect does not exist. Nature is ultimately a seamless continuum without beginning or end. All this I agree with.
However, on the other side of the coin, as soon as the mind starts to create and perceive divisions in Nature (e.g. things or events), cause and effect immediately becomes a reality.
In other words:
I believe that David did an excellent job of disarming arguments in favor of humean supervenience in wisdom of the infinite, even though i have a few questions on it and i believe that criticism of it can only make it more robust if it still stands afterwards.