So this is just not true, and I'm not exactly sure where these premises are coming from. Is it a misunderstanding of theoretical computer science, mathematics, engineering, or what?

But I can at least now see why you're attached to extremely strange notions about, eg., floats being sufficient representation for mathematical reasoning. Ie., some article of faith that "computers" must be capable of everything.

There is no "symbolic computation on pi" that arent rules of inference created by people. We arent born with these rules, we create them. So if we havent yet created them, there's no sense in saying any actual computer is capable of anything. Actual computers are merely implementations of rules we'd have to create.

The process of conceptualising the world is, in my view, continuous and non-cognitive. One example of it is in the generative capacities of the imagination, which presents situations as wholes and it's latent space imv is continuous -- having to do with the structure of the sensory-motor system.

In any case, regardless of whether you believe animals have access to a continuous reality which cannot be formalised in discrete mathematics, we arent talking about whether there are possible computers which can reason this way -- we're talking about actual computers. (Though we have no reason to suppose there are such possible computers, and proofs against such things, ie., the non-computability of the reals).

It's relatively trivial to show that all existing computers are woefully incapable of a vast amount of things. Consider, only, the exponential space complexity of storing the parameters of a chaotic system. In any existing computer, we'd need an electronic system the size of a planet merely to track what's going on inside an atom.

It requires vast arrays of machines to track surface properties of particles interacting in the LHC, for example.

Yet, of course, we can formulate QFT. There are a near infinite number of such "existence proofs" of the power of animal mental capacities: AND NOT A SINGLE ONE! Of machine capacities.

No existing actual computer has ever created a system of concepts to formalise a hitherto unformalised domain. No one has even solved the problem of how it would be possible for a machine to do so (ie., the framing problem).

This makes actual computers, and all possible ones we can presently even imagine useless for open problems with unformalised domains.

The only role a computer can play here is providing an implementation of a discrete aproximation we have created, and this aproximation is woefully inadequate to the task. Even using a computer here is just a means of improving the power of human speculation.

In any case, this article of faith in the power of discrete mathematics and the electrical systems which we use to implement it, blinds you to the overwhelming and woeful inadequacy of all existing systems.

To the point you're even defending floating pt representations of infinity. If you really wish to cling to that religion, you're going to have to get better at choosing which hills to die on. Saying floats here are a sensible means of representing problems in continuous mathematics is absurd, and discredits your views greatly.

The only computers you should be defending here are "presumably possible" ones, yet to do be defined, yet even to be specified.