Apologies if my question sounds too contrarian, but I think you are making some very big assumptions about the computability of the laws of physics that are not really based on anything concrete, like a strong knowledge of the mathematics of modern physics.
Are we really communicating here? I'm saying that there is a lot that physicists don't know about physics and that therefore it's impossible to make the assumption that you make, that every law of physics is computable. Because nobody knows all of them, and nobody knows what nobody knows, or how much of it there is.
And you're saying that, given high-school physics and "dabbling", we know all of it and it's all computable.
Is that a good summary of our discussion so far?
Hrm, I wouldn't say so, and I don't think if that is your impression that it's going to be very productive to continue it.
FWIW: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
But I agree this is not a productive conversation. I don't see that you have a very clear idea of what you are trying to say.
For instance, if the fastest hardware available to you performed about one operation each femtosecond, it would not have the time to enumerate all femtoseconds from the birth of the universe to its death. And that number is a finite quantity.