i’ve never tried to walk through the proof myself (i’ve heard it makes some significant leaps, ironically), but understanding the gist of it seems reasonably st

i’ve never tried to walk through the proof myself (i’ve heard it makes some significant leaps, ironically), but understanding the gist of it seems reasonably straightforward. a simple summary (forget from where this came) is that no self-consistent set of statements is provable true (reflective of reality), and the converse, no provably true set of statements can be provably self-consistent (no unprovable premises allowed). the proof surely has lots of nuance and caveats, but the (apparently debatable) philosophical implication is that logical systems can’t stand on their own and explain the world, which actually seems succinctly consistent with our general lived experience.