Greetings ! NOTICE: O.K. first of all I'd like to say I only had the MOST superficial look at it as possible and I'll probably pass out if I even see the tiniest fraction of the math involved in the actual proof. So, since my humble doubts that I wish to express here are complete BS, this thread will at least, hopefully, benefit those of you whoos acqaintance with this is as pathetic as mine. Enjoy the reading. Now, to the subject, here's a couple of links : http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html [Broken] My pathetic understanding : As I see it through a partial glance at the above explanations Godel's Theorem is basicly a mathematical Liar's Paradox (A liar says: I'm a liar). Here's the G sentence (which supposedly contains it in mathematical form) from the first link : " G: The arithmoquine of "The arithmoquine of a is not a valid TNT theorem-number" is not a valid TNT theorem-number. " What's unclear to me ? Well, the following: What is a liar in math ? How can you use "a" in math if it's not valid ? I understand you can say 1 does not equal 2. But, how can you use it for a more constructive argument ? You're turning a contradiction into a part of an argument and you can't do that. To me, it seems like using nothing in physics to explain physical effects - you just can't do that, it makes no sense within the system. A statement/number/whatever in math has definite values/value ranges - true/false, real number/ natural number/... BUT, if it's INVALID - it's NOT an axiom. It can NOT be used to construct an argument WITHIN that abstract system. Can it ? Conclusion: So, you see my pathetic dillema here with the certain simple solution that I'm simply too stupid or lazy to get. Feel free to humiliate me in public so that I may learn something. Thanks ! Live long and prosper.