It's one of the kinds of problem statements that gets habitually distorted by the technology we have to hand. Here we naturally envision it as something that a

It's one of the kinds of problem statements that gets habitually distorted by the technology we have to hand. Here we naturally envision it as something that a computational system might represent. But as soon as we solve some fraction of the problem with scientific means, a small fragment remains to be probed further, still mysterious. Solve that and a yet smaller facet still remains, as in Zeno's paradox. That has been the case with AI, with simulations and physics models and medicine and most fields of study. Our notion of the authentic is always on fragile ground, and this is most easily seen in music, where technology has enabled total control of the sound on a theoretical level of adding harmonics, but not in the practical sense of "reproduce this sound but make it Better". At the extreme ends it becomes a matter of taste again - why else should vinyl or vacuum tubes or analog filters remain so cherished? As we gain more technology, more of our lives enters this limbo where science can provide deductions that identify and change the measurable, but do not tell us how to pick good measures for ourselves. Philosophizing it is just a matter of continuing to ask those kinds of hard questions and inching forward ever so slightly each time.