The underlying question remains the accuracy of the prediction and what sequences of events (if any) can include Omega being incorrect.
In the “strong omega” scenarios, the opaque box is empty in all the universes where Irene opens the transparent box (including after Omega’s death). Yoav’s description seems right to me—Irene opens the opaque box, and is SHOCKED to find it empty, as she only planned to open the one box. But her prediction of her behavior was incorrect, not Omega’s prediction.
In “weak omega” scenarios, who knows what the specifics are? Maybe Omega’s wrong in this case.
In the traditional problem, you have to decide to discard the transparent box before opening the opaque box (single decision step). Here, you’re making sequential choices, so there is a policy that makes “strong Omega” inconsistent (namely, discarding B just when you see that A is empty).
The underlying question remains the accuracy of the prediction and what sequences of events (if any) can include Omega being incorrect.
In the “strong omega” scenarios, the opaque box is empty in all the universes where Irene opens the transparent box (including after Omega’s death). Yoav’s description seems right to me—Irene opens the opaque box, and is SHOCKED to find it empty, as she only planned to open the one box. But her prediction of her behavior was incorrect, not Omega’s prediction.
In “weak omega” scenarios, who knows what the specifics are? Maybe Omega’s wrong in this case.
In the traditional problem, you have to decide to discard the transparent box before opening the opaque box (single decision step). Here, you’re making sequential choices, so there is a policy that makes “strong Omega” inconsistent (namely, discarding B just when you see that A is empty).