> You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You're not understanding what I said. Last time: Turing Machines have a specific set of necessary ingredients.

> You didn't "show" it; you simply asserted it. You're not understanding what I said. Last time: Turing Machines have a specific set of necessary ingredients. That's not a "bald assertion" or an "appeal to authority". It's an observation about the theory of Turing machines [1]. Whether or not a physical system has those ingredients is an _objective_ matter. Also an observation. In case you need to think it through, there was a simple argument which you cannot rationally refute: i) If one of the ingredients is missing, "subjectively" wishing something is a Turing Machine will not make it so. ii) If all the ingredients are present, "subjectively" wishing that something isn't a Turing Machine will not change the fact that it is. Conclusion: subjectivity has no effect on whether something is or is not a Turing machine. QED. ---- You're the one making unsupported assertions and talking in circles. I can see that you're going to reply with more disagreement. Please imagine that my response is "I said good day sir!" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine#Description