Not to mention that smart people usually do amazing things by just changing the rules and making the problem easier to solve (you can only make a horse go so fast or pull so much, but you can invent an automobile or train)

This whole analogy I realized after thinking about it is just computer science baby babble.

Fundamentally it comes down to not formally specifying the problem (not saying I can, I can’t and neither can anyone else that I’m aware of)

People always want to cling to quantitative interpretations of qualitative problems, and then declare QED, despite the whole thing being predicated off a false premise to begin with (like the thing we’re discussing is an appropriate candidate for an algorithmic interpretation to begin with).

And without a formal specification of the problem, we have no formal way of checking our solution.