I think the answer here is somewhere in between. You're right that there will probably never be someone with a comprehensive understanding of low level programming who is also a physics prodigy and understands every minute detail of computers, but that doesn't make it "magic". We build abstractions in layers so everyone can granularly learn what matters to them and ignore the parts that don't. The amount of magic in a computer is inversely proportional to how deep you are in the abstraction layers, but I don't think that means it can't be understood.
The word "grok" does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel on it. I think most people can grok a computer, but that doesn't mean they could tell you every detail about it's use/manufacturing/operation/architecture/lithography. But we know enough to have a working knowledge, and for the purposes of this question I think that's what matters. Computers are designed to output predictable, reproducable behavior. They are meant to be unferstood by design.
The word "grok" does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel on it. I think most people can grok a computer, but that doesn't mean they could tell you every detail about it's use/manufacturing/operation/architecture/lithography. But we know enough to have a working knowledge, and for the purposes of this question I think that's what matters. Computers are designed to output predictable, reproducable behavior. They are meant to be unferstood by design.