ISTM that many posters have addressed this point in the form of hypothesizing Morphy’s natural skills but with the added advantage of modern chess analysis. But I’m not sure that gets to the answer.
Because ISTM that being able to up one’s game via analysis of a zillion other games etc, is itself a skill, which is not necessarily distributed evenly. And it’s possible that Morphy, even if he had been afforded the opportunity to do so, would not have excelled at that aspect of chess to the extent that he excelled in natural talent. If that’s the case, then he might have lost to any modern great, even if he had the same advantages.
In sum, it’s possible that if you took Morphy and brought him to the modern age of chess, and gave him the same chess history and computer analysis etc. to study, that he would still lose to the likes of Kasparov. But at the same time, if you took Kasparov and brought him back to Morphy’s time, thus removing the benefits of chess history etc., that he would lose to Morphy.
Essentially, the game changed over time in a way which might advantage or disadvantage people with different skillsets.