Thanks for the clarification. I'm still confused about the > Whether that matters aesthetically isn't at issue. Presumably if I have a hardware random number

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still confused about the > Whether that matters aesthetically isn't at issue. Presumably if I have a hardware random number generator that works by measuring thermal noise (directly or indirectly), I also can't emulate that in software. (If I could, cryptographic key generation would be insecure!) But we know what the output of the hardware random number generator sounds like, subjectively, as audio: it sounds like white noise! (Or maybe some other kind of noise depending on the details of the digital to analog conversion process.) So the idea that you can get an analog audio synthesis process that can't be emulated in software doesn't seem that surprising, but also potentially doesn't seem that interesting, except if someone also cares about something about how that process sounds subjectively to a human listener. But at that point, the theoretical argument about things that hardware can do that software can't emulate no longer applies directly anymore, right? That is, we can't extrapolate this theoretical argument about electronic circuits to something about qualitative human perceptions of the audio outputs of those circuits.