I spent a long time thinking about this same dillema as Penrose: if solving maths is undecidable, how can humans do math? It seemed like a great paradox and maybe revealing a super ability of humans.
I think the truth is both more boring and more wondrous. We of course can't "solve math". For any given mathematical problem, humans are not guaranteed to find a solution given enough time. Indeed there are many problems that have been proven very difficult for a long time and there's no certainty they will be solved any time soon. As Conway put it (paraphrasing) "It's not because we don't have a big enough brain or something ... it's because there's no way to know [without just looking]". That is, we effectively do increasingly sophisticated forms of search, the same search you can do with an algorithm.
For example, you can simply try running the algorithm for a long time and see if it does halt. If it does, there's your proof. If it doesn't, you either declare you don't know, or declare they halt and accept it may be a mistake. As T->inf, you can cover all programs that halt, and the unknown/mistakes (depending on how you measure[1], because there are infinitely many programs) you'd make go to 0 in a particular sense ([1]).
You can also try to be more clever. You can start enumerating all proofs that (A) a given program halts, and (B) a given program does not halt, (C) it cannot be proven either way (assuming the proofs are verifiable). This allows potentially (depending on your axiomatic system) proving your program halts much faster than waiting T(p) (its halting time), in particular in the case p is part of a class of programs that has superexponential halting time as a function of size (e.g. it halts in 2^2^(N), where N is its size -- those programs should be fairly easy to construct). But you'd still be waiting a long time. Note however, it still can be the case that no proof exists in your axiomatic system either of A, B or C. So you still have to declare either you don't know, or mistakenly assume it doesn't halt/no proof exists. As your proof search time T->inf you get the same coverage property, but faster (in the sense that it eventually overcomes the previous method).
I said both boring and wondrous because there is some magic here (just not magic outside of the rules of the cosmos :) ): you can (always?) do better in some sense. You can build more and more clever methods of deciding whether programs halt; I think of them as "bags of heuristics" or "bags of tricks": from simple observations e.g. that an empty loop does not halt, to more complex properties.
Those heuristics eventually are also meta-heuristics (or just proof-heuristics): not only heuristics to tell whether P halts, but heuristics in a search for proofs that P halts (allowing a faster proof search). (Of course, there are also meta-heuristics in the sense of thinking about better ways to solve the problem in general). In the case of humans, the interesting distinction is that we are "messy extremely large minds", and we, through experience, "learn", or accumulate those various heuristics in a generalizing way -- that's what intuition is. Our learning is still limited in the same fundamental way any algorithm would be, we just turn out to be a very special (maybe you can call it magical in a sense) learning, intuitive and sentient, system (although likely the particular architecture of our brains/minds is specially relevant to how we operate and how it "feels to be a human", consciousness, etc.).
Not only is our brain special, but in a sense we're "lucky" to be initialized or to have fallen into a more or less "universalizing environment". Of course, if you put a children in an empty room, or even in a forest (even provided with unlimited food), he is unlikely to learn much, least of all the secrets of the universe. Our society, our environment is such that we teach ourselves language and we particularly put value on discovery, such that we have set in motion an environment where we can, and we do, discover asymptotically more. And this discovery has a great purpose. As we learn more, we not only learn more about the Cosmos (which we're part of), we learn about our own nature, what it means to have a good existence, and all the things we can do to have a better (more complete, more fulfilling, more full of love, more meaningful) amazing existence[2]. That's our real "magic bean"[3] that must be guarded with utmost care.
[1] Measuring the performance here is tricky, again because there are infinitely many cases. In a strict sense, the fraction of programs you prove that halts is 0 for any T. But that seems like a poor model: we're usually much more interested in small cases. If you weight them with some decaying weights, for example exponentially decaying 1/2^N, then this weighted fraction converges.
[2] I think that should be the general objective of rationality, or reason, and science/reason is the general system of conducting, refining and making this process reliable.
[3] Gold mine, Golden goose, Jewel, Delicate flower, etc.. :)
---
On quantum behavior, essentially none of those conclusions are affected at all, or even require quantum behavior. Quantum computing might accelerate some operations, but that's all. (And quantum computation has been shown so far to require extremely delicate conditions that would be hard to happen in our brains)
I think the truth is both more boring and more wondrous. We of course can't "solve math". For any given mathematical problem, humans are not guaranteed to find a solution given enough time. Indeed there are many problems that have been proven very difficult for a long time and there's no certainty they will be solved any time soon. As Conway put it (paraphrasing) "It's not because we don't have a big enough brain or something ... it's because there's no way to know [without just looking]". That is, we effectively do increasingly sophisticated forms of search, the same search you can do with an algorithm.
For example, you can simply try running the algorithm for a long time and see if it does halt. If it does, there's your proof. If it doesn't, you either declare you don't know, or declare they halt and accept it may be a mistake. As T->inf, you can cover all programs that halt, and the unknown/mistakes (depending on how you measure[1], because there are infinitely many programs) you'd make go to 0 in a particular sense ([1]).
You can also try to be more clever. You can start enumerating all proofs that (A) a given program halts, and (B) a given program does not halt, (C) it cannot be proven either way (assuming the proofs are verifiable). This allows potentially (depending on your axiomatic system) proving your program halts much faster than waiting T(p) (its halting time), in particular in the case p is part of a class of programs that has superexponential halting time as a function of size (e.g. it halts in 2^2^(N), where N is its size -- those programs should be fairly easy to construct). But you'd still be waiting a long time. Note however, it still can be the case that no proof exists in your axiomatic system either of A, B or C. So you still have to declare either you don't know, or mistakenly assume it doesn't halt/no proof exists. As your proof search time T->inf you get the same coverage property, but faster (in the sense that it eventually overcomes the previous method).
I said both boring and wondrous because there is some magic here (just not magic outside of the rules of the cosmos :) ): you can (always?) do better in some sense. You can build more and more clever methods of deciding whether programs halt; I think of them as "bags of heuristics" or "bags of tricks": from simple observations e.g. that an empty loop does not halt, to more complex properties.
Those heuristics eventually are also meta-heuristics (or just proof-heuristics): not only heuristics to tell whether P halts, but heuristics in a search for proofs that P halts (allowing a faster proof search). (Of course, there are also meta-heuristics in the sense of thinking about better ways to solve the problem in general). In the case of humans, the interesting distinction is that we are "messy extremely large minds", and we, through experience, "learn", or accumulate those various heuristics in a generalizing way -- that's what intuition is. Our learning is still limited in the same fundamental way any algorithm would be, we just turn out to be a very special (maybe you can call it magical in a sense) learning, intuitive and sentient, system (although likely the particular architecture of our brains/minds is specially relevant to how we operate and how it "feels to be a human", consciousness, etc.).
Not only is our brain special, but in a sense we're "lucky" to be initialized or to have fallen into a more or less "universalizing environment". Of course, if you put a children in an empty room, or even in a forest (even provided with unlimited food), he is unlikely to learn much, least of all the secrets of the universe. Our society, our environment is such that we teach ourselves language and we particularly put value on discovery, such that we have set in motion an environment where we can, and we do, discover asymptotically more. And this discovery has a great purpose. As we learn more, we not only learn more about the Cosmos (which we're part of), we learn about our own nature, what it means to have a good existence, and all the things we can do to have a better (more complete, more fulfilling, more full of love, more meaningful) amazing existence[2]. That's our real "magic bean"[3] that must be guarded with utmost care.
[1] Measuring the performance here is tricky, again because there are infinitely many cases. In a strict sense, the fraction of programs you prove that halts is 0 for any T. But that seems like a poor model: we're usually much more interested in small cases. If you weight them with some decaying weights, for example exponentially decaying 1/2^N, then this weighted fraction converges.
[2] I think that should be the general objective of rationality, or reason, and science/reason is the general system of conducting, refining and making this process reliable.
[3] Gold mine, Golden goose, Jewel, Delicate flower, etc.. :)
---
On quantum behavior, essentially none of those conclusions are affected at all, or even require quantum behavior. Quantum computing might accelerate some operations, but that's all. (And quantum computation has been shown so far to require extremely delicate conditions that would be hard to happen in our brains)