That’s not a refutation because this problem is not a logical problem, it is a scale problem.

We can’t explain it because we distilled so many inputs into matrixes and transformed them over and over again. If we had all the time and computing power in the universe to do so, we could trace through it bit by bit and eventually answer that question.

It is correct to say that it is just science and math, the same way we can say that gravity is just science and math even if we have only recently begun to understand how it truly functions.

If you had some time and computing power (not even all that much, in the large scale of things), you could simulate perfectly how a human grows from an embryo to an adult, or how an entire human brain processes some incoming signal, and yet this wouldn't give you the understanding to design a human or human brain from scratch.

You call this a "scale problem" as if there's some scalable way such as an algorithm to resolve arbitrary scientific questions and we simply haven't done it, but of course no such algorithm exists, which is why there's plenty of science that's still not settled.

It's a refutation that we know how they work now. In the limit, though, yes, we are likely to be able to trace the process: it is possible, though, that understanding remains inaccessible because the trace is beyond comprehension.

If you can distil the model's reasoning for a decision into a billion yes/no questions, each covering largely-independent areas, can you really say you understand what its overall reasoning was?

> If we had all the time and computing power in the universe to do so, we could trace through it bit by bit and eventually answer that question.

Then we could also solve BB(6), but that doesn't mean we know BB(6) now or ever will.