TL;DR: <i>"If we can build a big enough computer we can understand anything"</i> is a delusion, but <i>"If we can build a big enough computer we can compute anything"</i> is scientific fact.<p>* * *<p>There are many valid points in the article. Sadly, they are shadowed out by misconceptions and/or wrong phrasing.<p>Since Turing's 1936 paper, we have proof that <i>computation is universal</i>. That means any computation in the universe, including the one occurring in your brain while you read this, can be implemented on a Turing machine.<p>So, yes, we have proof that <i>a big enough computer</i> can compute the human brain, the global climate, and any other physical phenomenon.<p>And the argument about indetermination in physics (ping-pong ball in the rapids) is about getting the information, not computing it — computation is universal, but information is sometimes impossible to obtain.<p>* * *<p>Universal computation does not mean that a computer can understand itself, and I like that the author suggests such a thing should be impossible.<p>Universal computation does not mean that building <i>a big enough computer</i> should always be the priority, and I like how the author addresses that.