You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations.
If a single miner did come about, than Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin.
So this example is worthless.
I hope you see all the contradictions in your attempt at argument. The single miner was YOUR example to demonstrate that decentralization came from the nodes, not from the miners. I took your premise to show you how that argument was totally flawed. Now you start saying that it is not "real world". No, but it is the perfect illustration of what I was saying: centralisation is mining centralization.
Now, you even admit that in your perfectly decentralized network with one miner, bitcoin would be dead. So you just admitted the point for which you called me a moron.
BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators will a single entity.
Your definition of it, stop apply to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about.
No. Your IDEA that consensus was "the majority of the community" was equivalent to "consensus of proof of work" stopped being valid at that point, and what remained was "proof of work" and NOT "majority of community". In other words, the failed attempt of Satoshi to use "proof of work" as a means of "consensus of community" is what you are talking about, but what effectively is valid, is proof of work. And if the proof of work is centralized, everything is centralized, and the rest doesn't matter. The non-mining nodes don't matter. They are simply proxy servers of the chain made by the miners, nothing more.