Corky, I think "supervenience theory" (check out Jaegwon Kim) covers many of the contentions presented in the link from your #195.
I'm still not convinced that adding a "quantum-layer" to this is even necessary. I may be mistaken, but iirc at one point you mentioned Douglas Hofstrader's "Goedel, Escher, Bach": at its basest level, even an axiomatic system like arithmetic relies on an unprovable "given"; a system cannot be both consistent and complete.
All of this is limited to the realm of human understanding, which is very constrained. God, science, or whatever -- it's quite possible that the "answer" is staring us right in the face, but we simply aren't cognitively sophisticated enough to realize it.
There's preliminary evidence to suggest that nature harnesses processes that aren't directly evident to human logical capacities.
I don't know much about the intersection between biology and computer science, but cellular automata seem to capture a lot of natural phenomena quite well.
Cellular automata are guided by a deterministic rule, applied iteratively, which, under some circumstances, produces results which are chaotic (or, computationally irreducible -- in contrast to classical physics equations, eg, for the position of a dropped object).
In other words, whereas certain configurations give rise to predictable, patterned behavior, there are several which do not enjoy "computational reducibility" -- ie, you cannot plug a variable into an equation and determine the outcome of the Nth step; to the contrary, one must trace each stem of this system, and cannot make and "deterministic inferences".
Well, that's just in the binary dimension (cell is black or white, depending on the state of its neighbors). Biology is a lot more complicated than that.
The computational universe offers strong evidence for some kind of order; if you regard this as a personal "God" seems to be subjective at best, and the motive for murder at worst.
