>" beyond the observable universe."

Equating understanding something that is actually physically impossible, to understanding something that is physically right in front of us? We can map brains, dissect them, model them.

It's engineering.

If we followed these arguments, then ancient man would have just thrown up their hands "what, everything is composed of little particles, you're crazy, it's beyond our understanding, stop trying".

Maybe the magazine used some hyperbole in the title of an article, that doesn't mean this isn't doable or that this isn't valuable step.

But - you do say, it isn't unsolvable. SO maybe we are agreeing in general, but not about the way articles hype things up.