You're on the right track, but the wrong problem. What this
theoretically renders irrelevant is the halting problem. Ignoring IO (which allows the importing of arbitrary amounts of state from the exterior world), it is in fact possible to take a real computer and determine if a program will halt. It's easy. You just run it and record every state it passes through. It will either return to a previously-existing state in a finite period of time, in which case the program does not terminate, or it will halt in a finite period of time.
The problem is that it doesn't take much computer before the fact that the halting problem is theoretically solvable doesn't matter much. The Commodore 64 had 524,288 bits, which means even ignoring the other hardware that could have its own states it has 2^524288 states, approx. equal 10^157,828 states. You can't fit a record of all of the states that it might pass through in our universe. And it gets exponentially worse with every bit you add. An impoverished computer with a mere gigabyte of RAM would be 10^2,585,827,973 states.
So while in theory our computers are state machines, in practice we are much better suited to using the tools of Turing machines to analyze their behavior.
(I'm pretty sure you could construct an argument using the usual formulation of the halting problem to prove there is no practical easier way to tell that a computer will halt in general, but it would be more involved than I can sketch out. There is more to it than just swapping out "Turing machine" for "Turing machine limited to a tape of size X" everywhere.)
(Edit: Incidentally, I skimmed over the article the first time, assuming it was based on this observation. Deeper reading shows that it doesn't mean this, and in fact I don't actually know what it is intending to say, honestly. But the above still holds. Technically, all computers are state machines, not Turing machines, as Turing machines don't fit in our universe.)
The problem is that it doesn't take much computer before the fact that the halting problem is theoretically solvable doesn't matter much. The Commodore 64 had 524,288 bits, which means even ignoring the other hardware that could have its own states it has 2^524288 states, approx. equal 10^157,828 states. You can't fit a record of all of the states that it might pass through in our universe. And it gets exponentially worse with every bit you add. An impoverished computer with a mere gigabyte of RAM would be 10^2,585,827,973 states.
So while in theory our computers are state machines, in practice we are much better suited to using the tools of Turing machines to analyze their behavior.
(I'm pretty sure you could construct an argument using the usual formulation of the halting problem to prove there is no practical easier way to tell that a computer will halt in general, but it would be more involved than I can sketch out. There is more to it than just swapping out "Turing machine" for "Turing machine limited to a tape of size X" everywhere.)
(Edit: Incidentally, I skimmed over the article the first time, assuming it was based on this observation. Deeper reading shows that it doesn't mean this, and in fact I don't actually know what it is intending to say, honestly. But the above still holds. Technically, all computers are state machines, not Turing machines, as Turing machines don't fit in our universe.)