So it shows you can uniquely identify any human with 33 yes-no questions, but reaching a member of a set isn't necessarily analogous to reaching a state of understanding.
It seems impossible for any question to be replaced with an interpretable meaning.
You could for example, have each of those questions be a series of geographical questions that eventually narrow down to a single point in space (you'll need to include z-axis questions as well). But the geographical regions cut out by each question will be insanely artificial.
Intuitively "satisfying" questions would probably require intrinsic questions, i.e. ones that could pick out individuals from the entire sea of hypothetical humans, living or dead, real or imagined.