I think in-story you believes that you will be killed if you make an inconsistent choice (or at least thinks there is a high enough chance that they do choose consistently).
The point of the post isn’t so much the specific set up, as it is an attempt to argue that Newcomb’s problem doesn’t provide any reason to be against causal decision theory.
I don’t get it. If I make an inconsistent choice, is this Omega going to kill me or not? Or is this uncertainty part of the problem?
I think in-story you believes that you will be killed if you make an inconsistent choice (or at least thinks there is a high enough chance that they do choose consistently).
The point of the post isn’t so much the specific set up, as it is an attempt to argue that Newcomb’s problem doesn’t provide any reason to be against causal decision theory.