Humans have a meta-proof that all Gödel sentences are true.
I thought the whole point was that our “proof” of the (supposed) truth of the Gödel statement is via a different (weaker?) notion of proof than the logical system in which it’s stated. So we can have a meta-proof of it without having an arithmetic proof, and regard that as “good enough”. (Likewise, computers can have stronger and weaker thresholds for believing statements.)
With that said, I’ve long been interested in the topic of whether there are pseudo-Gödel inputs that can make humans “crash”.
I thought the whole point was that our “proof” of the (supposed) truth of the Gödel statement is via a different (weaker?) notion of proof than the logical system in which it’s stated. So we can have a meta-proof of it without having an arithmetic proof, and regard that as “good enough”. (Likewise, computers can have stronger and weaker thresholds for believing statements.)
With that said, I’ve long been interested in the topic of whether there are pseudo-Gödel inputs that can make humans “crash”.