Author seems to assume the latter condition is definitive, i.e. that real machines are not, and then derive extrapolations from that unproven assumption.
As the adjacent comment touches on are the laws of physics (as understood to date) not possible to simulate? Can't all possible machines be simulated at least in theory? I'm guessing my knowledge of the term "algorithmic" is lacking here.
Quantum mechanics is even linear!
Fun fact, quantum mechanics is also deterministic, if you stay away from bonkers interpretations like Copenhagen and stick to just the theory itself or saner interpretations.
Also, one might argue that universe/laws of physics are computational.
Maybe we need to define "computational" before moving on. To me this echoes the clockwork universe of the Enligthenment. Insights of quantum physics have shattered this idea.
Not at all. Quantum mechanics is fully deterministic, if you stay away from bonkers interpretations like Copenhagen.
And, of course, you can simulate random processes just fine even on a deterministic system use a pseudo random number generator or you can just connect a physical hardware random number generator to your otherwise deterministic system. Compared to all the hardware used in our LLMs so far, random number cards are cheap kit.
Though I doubt a hardware random number generator will make the difference between dumb and intelligent systems: pseudo random number generators are just too good, and generalising a bit you'd need P=NP to be true for your system to behave differently with a good PRNG vs real random numbers.
No, computation is algorithmic, real machines are not necessarily (of course, AGI still can't be ruled out even if algorithmic intelligence is, only AGI that does not incorporate some component with noncomputable behavior.)