So Wikipedia: ‘A Turing machine is an abstract machine that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules; to be more exact, it is a mathematical model that defines such a device. Despite the model's simplicity, given any computer algorithm, a Turing machine can be constructed that is capable of simulating that algorithm's logic.’
In Victor’s Way terms: A Turing machine is a non-localized (i.e. abstract ≈ universal) set of rules that can simulate, i.e. copy, and so become, any local set of rules (read: boundaries or limits), whereby neither set rules is defined.
A set of rules (i.e. a rules, laws or conditions simulating machine) is named an algorithm. If an algorithm is understood (so Wikipedia, referring to mathematics and computer science) as: a self-contained (bounded or limited) step-by-step (i.e. quantised) set of operations to be performed, then a (basic or original) Turing machine is an (non-localised, i.e. universal) algorithm that can simulate, i.e. copy and so become any other (secondary, i.e. local) algorithm whereby each copy manifests as fractal elaboration of the original (universal) Turing algorithm. In other words, the secondary algorithm, for instance any one of n bio-systems, operates merely as the original Turing machine locally (i.e. conditionally as determined by alternate rules, so the Buddha) elaborated.
In simplest terms, the Creative Drive, call it God, Brahman, the Atman (i.e. SELF), the Way (or Tao) functions as universal Turing Machine that can become any local machine (i.e. a niche operation, such as the atma or (little) self)) whose (niche determined) rules it copies. Meaning that the local machine, for instance a human or a goose as fractal elaborations are the original algorithm, albeit with frills and whistles.
Or, as Meister Eckhart stated: “Some there are so simple as to think of God as if He dwelt there, and of themselves as being here. It is no so. God (i.e. the original or originating Turing machine) and I (as its fractal elaboration) are one.”