> all the popular explanations stop just short of really grappling with the real weirdness of the theorem.
No offense, but if I’m reading your comment correctly you’re making it out that nobody familiar with the proof has ever considered what “truth” really is. That’s…well, there’s a saying amongst physicists that, “you’re not even wrong.” The semantics of language and math have a copious amount of literature behind them. Not to mention that even asking the question is, forgive me, a tad juvenile.
Also, recursively applying known unknowns back into the statement (? If I understood that correctly) is itself incomplete: how could a system be “complete” if there are unknowns?
Forgive me if it seems I, too, have ventured into the cranky side of the discourse.
No offense, but if I’m reading your comment correctly you’re making it out that nobody familiar with the proof has ever considered what “truth” really is. That’s…well, there’s a saying amongst physicists that, “you’re not even wrong.” The semantics of language and math have a copious amount of literature behind them. Not to mention that even asking the question is, forgive me, a tad juvenile.
Also, recursively applying known unknowns back into the statement (? If I understood that correctly) is itself incomplete: how could a system be “complete” if there are unknowns?
Forgive me if it seems I, too, have ventured into the cranky side of the discourse.