We could do a modified Newcomb's Problem where the perfectly honest, all knowing Omega tells you that you're not the simulation but the actual person and the simulation has already been done which seems to resolve that possibility discussed above. I don't think you need to though because there's no statement in Newcomb's Problem that says that the predictions do occur via a simulation.

It reminds me of the trolley cart example in ethics where you're told a train is rolling out of control down a hill and will run over 3 people. By hitting a switch you can change the track it goes down and it will instead hit 1 different person. Should you hit the switch?

The specific question isn't relevant to what I'm trying to say but people's responses are.

People will say things like, "Well, I'd just yell at the three people to get off the tracks."

And then you have to specify that they're too far away.

And the person will say, "Well, I'll run toward them yelling so I get close enough in time."

And you have to specify that they're too far away for that as well.

The point is that the people that ask this question are missing the whole idea of the abstraction behind the trolley problem and they're thinking of it as a lateral thinking test rather than a scenario used to make an intellectual point.

I feel that finding a way for CDT to answer Newcomb's Problem via the specifics of the way Omega predicts your reactions is a similar response - trying to respecify the argument in such a way that an answer can be found rather than looking at the abstracted conception of the argument.

As always, I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong and missing something though.