Talking or reasoning about the uncomputable isn't the same as "computing" the uncomputable.

Obviously, but I didn't mean to imply that it was. My question is what we are actually reasoning about when we are reasoning about the uncomputable. Apologies if this wasn't clear.

It seems to me that oracle computations and accelerated Turing machines, seem to be related to counterfactual reasoning in the sense that they suppose things that are not the case such as Galilean velocity addition or that we can obtain the result of a non-halting computation in finite time and use that to compute further results.