Aren't you overshooting what you mean by linking to that paper? Treating some physical processes as computational processes might lead to some intractable problems, but it also might lead so some insights. Aaronson's section on space seems like an example of this.
Neither is an issue that some way of thinking might raise more questions than it answers. Actually, if any of those questions is both interesting and solvable, that is a virtue.
I don't believe I am overshooting. I am pursuing this conversation thread in light of the original claim; that the brain is incredibly good at math. I just wanted to poke at this statement a bit, to show that if you accept this claim (that the brain is "incredibly good at math" based on its inherent structure), it opens the door to a whole other discussion around what constitutes computation.
In sum, I was just trying to see through what angle OP was framing their point.
Neither is an issue that some way of thinking might raise more questions than it answers. Actually, if any of those questions is both interesting and solvable, that is a virtue.