godel bits: A: "This sentence is unprovable." A is true, and we can prove it so: If A is false, then A is provable. Provable sentences are true. Therefore, if A is false, A would be true. That's a contradiction, so A is true by elimination. Of course, if A is true, then the proof must not exist, so I'm guessing that's where the inconsistency comes from. It's like a logic system attack vector, a vulnerability -- you can add this statement to a self-referencing proof system to make it inconsistent. Thinking on it, yet again, one thinks of either the order in which things are evaluated, or the limitation of the states of always-true and always-false . It seems like basically you derive a further logic system that can provide for contradictions with undetermined truth or otherwise describe the set of things are true as valuable (if considering universal truth is considered valuable). For example, you could consider logic systems that have limited statements, as I consider above. But one wonders if the fundamentals of logic itself are flawed. If we have some strong instinct that is for survival, that we then extend to mathematics, and get flustered as we realize it does not always work. Logic is derivable from time and consistency.