Where are you going to get all that time and space to build a lookup table? Are you sure you're able to measure all state at enough precision to make an accurate table?
Any theory that asserts exhaustive coverage of people would need to take all relevant aspects of reality into consideration, so I suggested some of the trickiest things that are relevant.
Unfortunately for me, they are so tricky that they "don't count" (try, genuinely, to model the reality bending capability of people in a theory, I would love to see that!).
Much to the disappointment of my teenage self who would really have liked the shape-shifting spell to work, I don't see any evidence we can bend reality.
--
> consciousness?
I think this is a red herring. We can talk about P-Zombies, but we lack the means to determine if some random human (let alone AI) is one.
Isn't one of the big criticisms of AI at the moment the fact that they do this slight more than humans, and we can point and laugh at them?
(While conveniently forgetting that half of us were Yani and the other half Laurel, that half of us were blue and black while the other half were white and gold, etc.)
> The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose?
A reference to the ever diminishing role for God in the late 19th century onwards, but I'm not sure how you're using it here?
Then I would say your theoretical model is wrong or incomplete or makes for a circular argument (it's an assumption and not proven that finite matter evolving through time reduces to a lookup table).
Simply not true. Of course it is comforting for computer people to believe the world they live in is a giant computer, but that is not our real reality.
Radioactive decay and spontaneous pair production say otherwise on the deterministic front.