• Classifying the answers as a, b y c, and making show their positive and negative values, leads us to the interpretation of -a! =c (! Means no, and therefore! = Means not equal), that breaks a little the simplicity of the model in which the answers are YES, NO o NONE (No answer or the empty set), and I like the simple model because it gets close to the computers theory, you know, one bit is the smallest information unit and represents an answer to a question, so it squares very well with the decisions model.

• Actually it is not exactly like this. Deciding not to make a decision is not the same as not answering. Not answering is the state while there haven't been any decisions made. Deciding not to answer IS AN ANSWER. But it still is an example. Three types of answers a, b, c are as a matter of fact 3 different answers. Later we'll see if their numerical values are the same or not, fixed or variable, but they imply 3 different ways of making a decision.
UD presents 4 dimensions; a, b, c and time; it's not binary. I chose it that way because the reality we accept is also like this.
The truth is that I should make it multidimensional if I want it to be a generalization of everything, but I'm already afraid of any mathematical development, as it is...Imagine I had to work with n dimensions.
The basic idea is simple and general. We have an m mass and a q charge body in any place in space. We know that another body in other place with m' mass and q' charge is attracted or repelled by the first one. The basic question is: How can a body inform the other one of where it is? How a body can inform the other one the mass and charge it has? How do they exchange information?
That language is not completely invisible now. We can only see its consequences. We have to take into account that light is not all the possible questions and answers, but a specific type of i particles, later we'll called them T1.
A T1 particle really has a zero transformation work and if it is constituted by only one question that is entirely transmitted to a particle that receives it when the two of them occupy the exact same position in space. But as they have the same position, the particle that receives the question has no one to answer but itself, later actually it gains in total energy. If during @, that new total energy destabilizes its equilibrium inside a body, it can no longer belong to that body.(This way we would have the explanation of the photoelectric effect). But the electron, which does have a defined value for &, after @+& it generates an answer. (Compton effect)
A way to approach the understanding of the T1 particles´ functioning is to see T1 as a question-decision being transmitted between different places in our space. Each place is in a certain instant a particle that contains one single decision and is transmitted in a @ instant to the next place, which at the same time will ask the next place and so on. The places are quantified in each axis in units a,... That'll lead us to have to decide between several options when approaching reality.
Will we have different a, b, c values in intensity? Or we will have different values in the waiting time? It doesn't seem reasonable to adopt different possible intensities for a, b, c in one single decision when comparing it to reality. Therefore all the explanations are given by
@ And &.
The fundamental particles language is not completely unknown and the premises in our UD have to be as general as possible.

• You don't need to define a null work in order to make decisions, since as you've already defined, all is energy, including the stimulus and their answers, and as the energy doesn't disappear but is transformed, it's easier to say that a decision doesn't generate an energy transformation, therefore it remains (that ends up implying the null work of the decision). That postulate might need a revision for macroscopic systems, since obviously in the real world energy is transformed, maybe not so much because of this universe's intrinsic base but because of other type of interactions.

• The T1 particles are the only ones that from this classic point of view have zero transformation work. In the case of the rest of them it is not zero. What is more, that transformation work is the one that is going to settle the energy required from a certain particle to answer in a specific way. Imagine it as ideal little balls.
If you put a huge line of the same little balls and the first one moves to the right to "a", if there's no friction involved all of them will move towards the right to "a" with a minimum effort.
But if we have two little balls and one of them when you tell it "a" has to answer -a, the work for the one that has to answer -a is enormous. To stay "alive" after one single answer -a will have to have a huge amount of mass (energy inside its constitution). If it also has to remain stable after many answers, then it will be greater. It even has to have a "mechanism" to answer with a minimum effort. This mechanism is only possible sometimes by means of a combination of fundamental particles that answer each other.
That is what makes so many fundamental particles to appear afterwards. And it's funny that the T4 classification I came up with responds to the features that quarks and other known fundamental particles with odd properties present (1/3 charge....) we'll talk about that later. But the T4 classification means that there are many still unknown fundamental features that are necessary... Although not all of them are possible and much less if it's isolated.

• I understand that @ represents the minimum time that goes by since an i mass makes a decision until it can make the next one. That doesn't contemplate if during that @ time the i mass receives a stimulus or not, if it receives it, it'll answer in less than @ seconds or it means that the i mass can't receive a stimulus before @ seconds have past?

• @ is the minimum time required to make a decision. During that minimum time, even if another stimulus gets there, no other decision can be made. If it weren't this way, it wouldn't be the minimum. The stimulus that gets between stay "waiting", can only be attended after @.
That mechanism could explain the Compton Effect and some other similar ones.
There's no "no answering". There's the decision of not answering. The real question is if all types of i particles have the same @ or not.
On one hand, in the real universe we've only got one time pattern. That suggests that the time dimension is common for all the systems E1, E2, E3.... En.
So, the feature of changing the answering time between the different i particles is caused by & which curiously will also provide its volume.
The fact that the universe is a "limb" if there's no observer seems to agree with the deductions reached by other paths.

• I don't understand either that the energy depends on the decision nor the minimum energy.

• A stimulus generates a decision that can act again as a stimulus for the first i unit.
But it can happen that in the 3 coordinate axes we don't find the same decision making ability. That agrees to the features many known fundamental particles present.
The T1 ones would be light and radiation
The T3A ones, the charge (either positive or negative)
The T3B ones, the other charge.
But the T4 ones would bring about the leptons, the quarks and all the rest of the known and unknown ones.
Imagine an i T4G unit. According to what we've seen before, it would answer as one type of charge in two axes and as another type of charge in the other axis. It would have an 1/3 apparent charge.
T4D and T4E would also have 1/3 apparent charge.
A T4C or T4F particle would have a 2/3 apparent charge or zero...
When trying to imagine the mechanisms by which that takes place and the necessary transformation works, they will appear the rest of their features, but by now we've already got something that used to be inexplicable.
The T2 particles have to be super massive in reality because of the effort involved in the transformation of printing a stimulus to a -a answer. Imagine a little ball approaching to a particle at high speed and the particle has to react in the same axis at the same speed but in opposite directions...The energy required to do that is huge.
The combinations are extraordinary and between them we can find all the already known ones and some of the unknown ones....

• If the stimulus can only be type a, b or c then the space constituted before is only E1, E2 y E3, and a particle can not receive more than 3 different stimulus or n stimulus of three different types, so the interaction between the particles ends up limited to 3 types with 3 answers.

• E1, E2, E3, E4... En...represent the decision types. For example, if you ask me about my electric charge or about my mass (I'll like it to turn out to be the same question) and a, b, c are the possible answers to that question. In the case of mass they'd be three answers a, b, c on her. In the case of charge other 3 different a', b', c' also with different @.
If they were different, an i particle could be basic for a certain decision and not for another one… Considering different question types leads us to lots of paradoxes.
That's why I think the mystery is that eventually it is only one. But I haven't yet closed the doors and I believe there can be different decision types.

• As a matter of fact it's not that there's no time or space, but whatever it is what truly exist we are not able to know it. In the end I've included some ideas and developments, here we'd enter in the comparison with a computer.

• The computer works with a binary system incapable of explaining those 1/3 charge features that some of the known fundamental particles present. It's not good to compare the UD model with a computer, if we want to understand it completely.