Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are probably some of--if not the most---misunderstood concepts in all of mathematics (rivaling Cantor's Uncountability Theorem).

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are probably some of--if not the most---misunderstood concepts in all of mathematics (rivaling Cantor's Uncountability Theorem). While the usual analogy for the first theorem is drawn to the liar's paradox ("This is a false statement."), it's important to remember that it is only an analogy. The first theorem states, in layman's terms, that we can construct a valid mathematical statement which is complete and utter nonsense. (Much like "This is a false statement." is neither true nor false, but nonsensical.) The second incompleteness theorem simply states (again, in layman's terms) that the consistency (where we say something is consistent if it contains no contradictions) of certain systems cannot be shown from the rules of the system itself. (Or alternatively and more correctly, if you're able to show the consistency of these systems using their own rules, then they're inconsistent.) That said, please remember that these are mathematical theorems and as such their "applications" to other areas such as metaphysics, even by their creator, are not rigorous or necessarily meaningful. They live where they belong: in the depths of mathematical logic, in the heart of mathematics.