If you are a perfect reasoner, some variations on Newcomb will subject you and Omega to the halting problem, in which case the premise “Omega can predict your actions” is inconsistent.
And my answer to the smoking lesion problem is (given the usual formulation of the problem, which may not include the phrase “want to”), what mechanism are you suggesting leads someone with the gene to be more likely to smoke? If it doesn’t affect your reasoning process (but may affect premises, like how desirable smoking is), then deciding to smoke or not smoke as the result of a reasoning process is not correlated with cancer, and you should decide to smoke. If it affects your reasoning process, the question “what should an ideal reasoner choose” is irrelevant.
If you are a perfect reasoner, some variations on Newcomb will subject you and Omega to the halting problem, in which case the premise “Omega can predict your actions” is inconsistent.
And my answer to the smoking lesion problem is (given the usual formulation of the problem, which may not include the phrase “want to”), what mechanism are you suggesting leads someone with the gene to be more likely to smoke? If it doesn’t affect your reasoning process (but may affect premises, like how desirable smoking is), then deciding to smoke or not smoke as the result of a reasoning process is not correlated with cancer, and you should decide to smoke. If it affects your reasoning process, the question “what should an ideal reasoner choose” is irrelevant.