>>12195839man, its almost like i didnt even elaborate on that
godel conflates truth with consistency, and then says that something could be true but not provable
but every single fucking logician uses true to mean provable, at least in some, possibly meta, system
so the woo version of godel is, there is some magically true statement that isnt provable
but the actual properly formulated version is, there is some consistent statement that is not provable
much less esoteric when you actually use the words right, dont you think
