>Godel's incompleteness theorems state that there will always be statements that are true, but can never be proven to be true. Not exactly. It says that incomp

>Godel's incompleteness theorems state that there will always be statements that are true, but can never be proven to be true. Not exactly. It says that incompleteness is always true for axioms of a consistent system. It does not have to hold for an inconsistent system of axioms. >Fields should be as mathy as they can be, but no mathier. Otherwise it's just fake formalism, as you said yourself. If I used the words fake formalism, i'm likely referring to the usage of big words and titles to falsley promote a sense of legitimacy. Like "System architect" Fields should be as mathy as we can make them as developing a formal language around any concept aids in exact analysis. >There are plenty of fields with "design" in the name that are quite rigorous: analog circuit design, digital signal processor design, microprocessor design, compiler design, etc. Yeah but all of these fields involve intuitive guesses. Given specific requirements can you derive via calculation the optimal circuit design/digital signal processor design/microprocessor design/ compiler design? These constructs are "designs" rather then calculations and they, as a result, reflect a lack of knowledge on how to calculate the best possible "design."