No one can "know", with certainty, the location of any particle. Or, to be slightly more accurate, the more we know of its location, the less we know of its movement. This is essentially Heisenberg/QM 101.
But we see the results of "computation" all around us, all the time: Any time a chemical or physical reaction settles to an observable result, whether observed by one of us, that is, a human, or another physical entity, like a tree, a squirrel, a star, etc. This is essentially a combination of Rovelli's Relational QM and the viewing of QM through an information centric lens.
In other words, we can and do have solid reality at a macro level without ever having detailed knowledge (whatever that might mean) at a micro/nano/femto level.
Having said that, I read your comment as implying that "the human mind" (in quotes because that is not a well defined concept, at least not herein; if we can agree on an operational definition, we may be able to go quite far) is somehow disconnected from physical reality, that is, that you are suggesting a dualist position, in which we have physics and physical chemistry and everything we get from them, e.g., genetics, neurophysiology, etc., all based ultimately on QM, and we have "consciousness" or "the mind" as somehow being outside/above all of that.
I have no problem with that suggestion. I don't buy it, and am mostly a reductionist at heart, so to speak, but I have no problem with it.
What I'd like to see in support of that position would be repeatable, testable statements as to how this "outside/above" "thing" somehow interacts with the physical substrate of our biological lives.
Preferably without reference to the numinous, the ephemeral, or the magical.
Honestly, I really would like to see this. It would represent one of the greatest advances in knowledge in human history.