What OP is describing is the strong form of emergence, that emergent behavior cannot be fully understood or predicted by understanding each of the individual parts. Aka the whole is more than the sum of the parts. If you fully understood the laws of physics at an atomic level, would it be sufficient to recognize a cpu as turing complete if you see one?
It's a debatable position in philosophy against the reductionism OP is describing, and maybe a bit magical but I'd find it the more interesting of the two positions to hold.
I have a vague familiarity with that view, and that is definitely not the view I hold.
That view states, as you describe, that somehow the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. I reject that. Instead, my claim is that if the only parts you have are physical parts, you will not get consciousness. You need other parts too -- specifically, mental/consciousness parts.
(although, this sounds closer to a dualist view, while my view is more idealist)
So reduction and emergence are obviously each other's complement. (A bit like differentiation and integration)
> If you fully understood the laws of physics at an atomic level, would it be sufficient to recognize a cpu as turing complete if you see one?
This is testable if you take an alternate universe with very few laws. Somewhat canonically, do you understand a Turing machine built in Conway's Game of Life if you understand the 2 rules of that game. (Or 4 rules, depending on how you count).
The only way to understand it is to play the game.
It's a debatable position in philosophy against the reductionism OP is describing, and maybe a bit magical but I'd find it the more interesting of the two positions to hold.