Could you clarify what point I'm missing? It's true that I am, intentionally, conflating automation and formalisation of mathematics, activities which can be meaningfully distinguished. Is it to that that you object?
On the other hand, I think that it is also meaningful to point out that, although automation is just a version of human activity carried out by a computer, not all human activity is subject to automation—at least, not yet. The two bad examples that spring to mind are chess-playing and facial recognition (bad because both have recently come into the reach of computers).
In principle, any human activity that we understand can be automated simply by giving a computer sufficiently precise instructions; but (1) if those instructions are too detailed and ad hoc, then it may be just as hard to give them as to carry out the task, and (2) there are many human activities that we do not understand.
What principle is that? I've never heard of such a thing.
> any human activity that we understand can be automated simply by giving a computer sufficiently precise instructions
Care to back up this clearly false statement? I've heard only the opposite regarding computers. Also, hard AI being nothing more than an impossibility and (political)fantasy of know-nothings is a very real option. The peak of automation will be reached within this century and it won't be ``great'' in its ability.
> (2) there are many human activities that we do not understand.
You're just being pseudo-intellectual and making up false principles.