Hello Seth Lloyd...

Semantic Issues:

Is "arrive at a decision" semantically equivalent to "go through process and make decision"... or is it semantically equivalent to "evaluate up to a single two bit yes/no decision"?

Semantically constructed yes/no questions... e.g. "Is the chicken a decider?... are not necessarily one bit flips, even for a chicken.

"Should I cross the road?"... is a composite decider process in that it requires:
- decision and input from physical sensors... "Is the road hot?"... "Do I hear a car coming?"
- decision and input from consequential if/then logic processes
- continuous read to motivation program/drive
... and it may also require the chicken to make a selection as to the type of two bit logic process to utilize in the final yes/no flip.

Even "Did the chicken cross the road?" is a mega multi bit flip sequence.

The underlying mechanics of computational science is the process by which a single unit of Energy (E), becomes differentiable... i.e. addressable in space... and thus equates to an Information (I) bit.

To accurately model the underlying QE-->QI of quantum mechanics. requires a valid solution to the theorized Einstein/Higgs lattice... i.e. the actual physical mechanics... and corresponding computational functions, utilized by the Causality Singularity, to facilitate the expansion of the electromagnetic field, must be known.

Bottom Line:

The mapped space can be physical:
The (E-->I) transition/conversion of electron pulses to information, in a conventional digital computer, in which the flow of electrons is mapped by a physical computational structure of wires and IC's, whose circuit configuration will allow 2 bit state query information to be read and processed as 0's and 1's, facilitates decision logic expansion.

In a physical quantum computer, the physical computational structure may be the energy circuit choreography of a field sub entity such as the hydrogen atom.

The mapped space can also be virtual:
The address map can be relational to the coordinate system within a CAD application. Cartesian, Radian (Polar), and UQS, are examples of coordinate systems.

In either case, physical or virtual, the mechanics of the energy distribution/assignment are relational to the specified geometry that quantizes/defines the address system. That geometry dictates the valid logic functions which can be expanded from it's precepts... i.e. the functions inherent in the lattice geometry expansion.

As theorized by Einstein and subsequently Higgs, the "Universal" information system expands from the central Origin of the Causality Singularity (CS), and formats space. Its geometry underlies all quantum mechanics/functions.

Einstein's legacy question: "What is the mathematical character of the Universe?"... is a query for the lattice geometry of the universal information system.

The coordinate system for the CS lattice is inherently a valid unified quantization of a 3-D spherical field... i.e. it expands in all directions equally.

Lattice structures based on either Cartesian or Radian (Polar), or any combination of, will not support CS spherical quantization requirements.

At CS, the pulsed transition of minimum Energy quanta (QE),to addressable minimum Spatial quanta (QI)... i.e. QE-->QI... must facilitate the expansion of the spatial field, as an information system.

Causality Singularity:

If at the Causality Singularity we construct an E-->I transition/conversion, in which a pulsed unit of E, is divided by the specified lattice quantization, into minimum Energy quanta (QE) as are inherent in the specified lattice singularity configuration, and is then mapped to the minimal logic computational address (QI) structure of the specified coordinate system/lattice, then the lattice spatial quantization dictates distribution of QE... i.e. replaces the wires and IC's in a conventional system with virtual coordinate system dictates.

The system "boots", and on each subsequent pulse cycle, the entire field is read, Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) performed, and the entire field is updated.

On Pulse-1-Open of any CS lattice expansion, the only logic functions available, to facilitate transition of QE-->QI, are the distribution dictates, mapped by the quantization of "virtual" space, by the specified lattice... i.e. flow of QE to the 2 bit QE occupied/unoccupied state of any mapped address contiguous to the CS origin.

Could the CS be an infinite automaton?

If so, is CS infinite automaton behavior predictable by sub field entities with knowledge of CS logic lattice?

Is an OS programer analogous to an infinite automaton?

Criteria for "recursive logic/self awareness" are constrained by the "no review of past" nature of any Causality Singularity, but the CS lattice is a model of its decisions... i.e. pulse by pulse solutions written to space... and the HALT problem does exist.

Apparently, on Pulse-1-Open, a HALT, initiates a "try different lattice" solution to the CS, or we would not be here.

System Clock = CS pulse cycle.

That being the case, time constraints on the Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) can not be a valid decision criteria... i.e. if no time... then duration of the ICS cannot be determined, and no speed functions/comparatives are available for ICS, on any pulse open cycle.

Note that on Pulse-1-Open, all QE direction is outward... i.e. no 2 bit QE direction functions available.

Unified Quantization of Sphere (UQS): ...
REF: UQS Differentiation (9sec.) [Youtube] [Win Media IE6]

The UQS coordinate system is a valid unified quantization of a 3-D spherical field...

... and the base volume unit, facilitates infinite spherical lattice expansion, at any specified base unit volume scale.

The UQS QE Expansion does resolve distribution of QE... i.e. assign a lattice address to QE pulsed units... and facilitate QE-->QI in a manner consistent with the above conceptualization of CS clock/time.

The UQS CAD QE Expansion SIM, currently runs an Inertia and Radiation channel out to Pulse-36-Close...

... and verifies that field inertia sub entities, are inherent in the UQS spatial field expansion.

As shown in Pulse-8-Close image...

... the first UQS QE Expansion Inertia channel field sub entities to differentiate, retain the logic functions available to the UQS CS, and are able to utilize the 2 bit QE direction operative, inherent in the lattice expansion, to acquire expanded logic functions.

Determination of "recursive-logic/self-awareness" in the first Inertia channel field sub entities, is supported by the occupied/unoccupied operative, to facilitate review of previous pulse solution written to the spatial lattice, and the entity's QE circuit configuration is a model of its differentiation from the CS.

In first UQS differentiated field sub entities, a "HALT", apparently initiates "wait for additional CS input" ... i.e. the sub entity QE circuit does not sustain an independent flow of QE without QE input from the CS.

The QE input update cycle for first generation field inertia sub entities = CS origin pulse cycle X 8... i.e. no sub entity can process at or greater than the CS pulse.

This invalidates the potential for paradox... i.e. "... that simulation could take place more rapidly than in real time".

The UQS CAD QE Expansion SIM, also verifies that our observations of QI logic processes of a field sub entity, require less resolution than observation of Causality Singularity scale: QE=QI logic processes... i.e. QI mechanics of field sub entities could be perceived with a lattice that does not facilitate resolve of the QE=QI logic processes of the CS.

Pseudo random q-events are highly probable, if observations are made without valid lattice solution.

Field Sub Entities:

The UQS Expansion CAD SIM has not yet achieved the mathematically predictable configuration at which a UQS quantized sphere will entangle first generation inertia sub entities, and expand QI functions/mechanics to reflect the QE circuit/choreography scale change of the sub entity singularity circuit choreography.

Making above statement, causes me to reflect on the Conway-Kochen qoute: "... elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity (free will)...", that Lloyd included in "Turing Test for Free Will".

Whether the second generation filed inertia sub entities will retain CS scale:QE=QI logic processes, is not yet known.

QE choreography/circuit complexities about an individual field inertia sub entity type: HUMAN BRAIN singularity ... (self-consciousness)... could quite conceivably obscure CS scale:QE=QI logic processes.

Consciousness being the QE choreography of the singularity for a specified field sub entity... i.e. entity energy configuration?

Self-consciousness being the sub entities accessibility to knowledge of its available logic functions?

With regard to field inertia sub entity type: HUMAN BRAIN, Lloyd submits the following observation:"... quantum decoherence effectively suppresses any role for extended quantum coherence in the brain...".

I realize that most humans can not TRON their own decisions back to a QE input from the CS, and whether Sub Entity Type: HUMAN retains CS QE-->QI lattice quantization logic functions, is difficult to determine, but there are clues.

If in one's dream state of consciousness, one makes the decision to raise one's hand, in most cases the consequences of the decision are only perceived in the dream... i.e. human brains can simulate decisions, without physical consequences, in fractions of time that the decision would take in "real" time.

Recent studies on humans that can alter their logic process state, show that humans can use alternative processes to facilitate cell, perhaps even sub-cell, level maintenance/alterations on their bodies.

We also know that adrenaline can alter the processing clock functions in field inertia sub entity type: HUMAN.

Also note that although self-reference and recursive thought may, as Lloyd theorizes, prevent deciders from knowing what their decisions will be beforehand, it apparently does not reflect the degree of responsibility the individual may be free will-ing to accept for the outcome of its decision.

Although Penrose may insist that "human beings are not subject to the halting problem", my observations verify that in field inertia sub entities type: HUMAN, a "HALT", can apparently initiate a "charge on w/o solution" sequence...

Summary/Rant:

In the absence of a valid Q-unified field model, an inability to resolve the problems Lloyd discussed in Oct. 1995 Scientific American Vol. 273 No. 4 pg. 140... Ref: SciAmdigital.com ... has apparently initiated a "HALT" state, that has dampened the then optimistic projections for Q-computing technological developments... i.e. empirical confusion generates philosophy.

A lack of a precise mathematical model, limits any analysis of Q-computational mechanics to semantic interpretation ... i.e. speculating on decision processes of field sub entities without a valid model of the underlying computational mechanics of the universal field is equivalent to postulating the q-mechanics of gravity utilizing a field theory that does not resolve 3-D asymptotic spatial issues.

The underlying nature of two bit logic processes must be analyzed from the Causality Singularity outward, not from an asymptotic bounded region of time and space, which is inherent in any speculation made without a valid Einstein/Higgs lattice solution.

That being the case I have used the discussion to justify the necessity for a more precise logic model... i.e. a valid coordinate system for the simulation of Universal expansion from the Causality Singularity.

Although I will not yet insist on the UQS lattice as the only valid Einstein/Higgs lattice solution, I will insist that generating QE expansion generalities, requires that the Einstein/Higgs lattice being utilized, must be graphically declared, preferably as a 3-D CAD model.

One can reasonably consider alternatives to the UQS QE expansion model, only if the alternative is presented as a CAD SIM... i.e. QE must be precisely mapped over time to addressable space before subsequent formulation is valid/meaningful.

To its credit, the UQS CAD SIM is not currently in a "HALT" state, other than waiting for a window of my time and focus, to resolve the next pulse cycle ICS.

Predictably, UQS Expansion ICS addresses/variables are expanding exponentially, but potential solutions are becoming more constrained by previous operation mandates, and that is indicative of a digital system that can be taught/programed to solve "NEXT" on its own.