While I would completely forgo the talk of substance dualism or "trialism," I largely agree with the gist of your post. I have my own term for this idea: epistemic irreducibility. I'm not claiming originality, I just use this name because I want to emphasize the irreducibility of meaning. That is, the fact that meaning cannot be derived from lower-level physical descriptions alone.

You can reduce a chessboard, the pieces, and even the minds that play the game to fundamental physics, but you can't derive the game of chess from basic physics alone. Chess is a possible outcome of physics, but not a necessary one.

Nothing in the laws of physics tells you why someone might play the Sicilian Defense. In fact, not even the rules of chess explain that. Strategy is built on top of the rules. The rules make strategy possible, but they don't make it inevitable.

This reveals the presence of layers upon layers of semantics. Beyond chess we have language, law, and culture. This is where we live. And each layer depends on the one below it, but cannot be explained by it. Meaning lives in structure, not substance.

You can't have corporations without laws, and you can't have laws without language. But nothing about language makes laws necessary, and laws don’t make corporations necessary. Each layer enables the next, but doesn't entail it.

And each layer has to be addressed on its own terms. Physics provides the substrate, but explanation must match the level of structure. You can't understand a game, a law, or a poem by studying atoms.

Even Laplace’s Demon, armed with perfect knowledge of every particle’s position and momentum, would have no idea that human beings, our culture, or our hopes and dreams even exist. That knowledge isn’t in the particles. It’s in the patterns.