This is fascinating reading, even though it goes over my head, however much I wish it didn’t. The question to me is how much does the concept of completeness overlap or differ from the “perfectability” of human understanding? – “perfectability” meaning our minds could give us a window on ultimate truth, a Platonic ability to grasp forms.

I’ve read two books on Godel’s signature work. That goes over my head too, except for the takeaway that incompleteness is a pervasive feature of human cognition – his work is another demonstration that our minds can’t do what we think they can do, like infinity, the value of pi, dividing by zero, the square root of -1, or the liar paradox.

Michael Dummett’s conclusion to The Logical Basis of Metaphysics might be relevant: “It is a persistent illusion that, from the premise that God knows everything, it can be deduced that he knows whether any given proposition is true or false – that is, that he either knows that it is true or knows that it is false, and that his omniscience therefore entails that the proposition is either true or false. On the contrary, its being either true or false is required as a further premise in order to deduce from his omniscience that he knows, in the sense stated, whether it is true or false.”