I can see why this guy is popular.

I wonder whether he'd be so quick to dismiss Gödel and Quine if presented with an utterance like,

    "This sentence is true, but cannot be proven true by any human nor any human-crafted device."

I'm quite confident that this sentence is true, but cannot put forth a proof which would convince anybody; at the same time, just like any other mathematical object, its proof is generated by the observer, who convinces themselves of its truth while simultaneously acknowledging the paradox.

Gödel's entire point was that this formulation was rigorous and could not be escaped by a mere change of (syntactic or semantic) venue. Turing's point was that this formulation extends to computation and effective methods of producing results. Quine's point was that it is the quotation mark, and not the self-reference, that leads to the incompleteness/inconsistency.

I probably wouldn't mind so much, but he seems like the kind of guy who believes in physical cause and effect.