I wrote a complicated reply, then deleted it. I think it resolves to this: having formal descriptions for what matters a great deal in defining limits and algo

I wrote a complicated reply, then deleted it. I think it resolves to this: having formal descriptions for what matters a great deal in defining limits and algorithms resolving into calculation. That is important because you could waste your time. We see creatures in nature like Julia Galef's Sphex which follow simple algorithms but because they don't understand their terminal goal they cannot alter a suddenly ineffective algorithm. Clearly understanding limits has the capacity to limit stupidity. However we also know that practically many non-trivial problems are solved before we can put them into a mathematical framework. It applies to Geoffrey Hinton and the neutral network's effectiveness with a small number of layers. According to many mathematicians that should have been implausible and Hinton was toiling in barren fields and yet today we see it works. So the limit existed in their model rather than reality. Physical examples of the same phenomenon include useful atomic power and heavier than air powered flight. Sometimes the theory leads the practice. Other times the practice outstrips the theory. So in answer to your question, I wouldn't have much confidence either way.