Discovery or Making?

This is one of the oldest topics I ever looked at and it still looks wooly. Just quickly tying in some of the posts already gone (from memory no time to reference)...

The issue of the ""If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?" which I didn't know but according to Wikipedia is attributed to Berkley has a parallel in Zen "what is the sound of one hand clapping?". To me there are two meanings to this. One is rational - it is the point, essential to Buddhism, that nothing exists by itself but is instead the product of causes and conditions. A single hand cannot clap because neither can two hands. It is only in the relationship of the hands in a clap that we get a sound. Thus we see that nothing by itself ever did anything, and more importantly nothing by itself "is" anything! Apply that to ourself and we have the essence of liveration.
The other way I can see to look at this is identical. The answer is NULL. Heavily discussed already NULL is an entity from computer data processing and means "not relevant". An example would be in a questionnaire where some questions were not answered - you need a meta-language to mean that the value entered is not a response to the questionnaire. Even if you added an option to the questions "respondee didn't answer" what if the questioner missed the question all together? NULL means that "within the context there is no valid answer". NULL is treated as an irrelevant ghost but it was handled in previous posts as more valuable even that answers within the context!
The answer to Berkleys question is NULL because effectively he is asking what is the answer if no-one records it. Which is the same as realising that it requires "two to tango" - which is the more romantic version of the Zen koan and which I did once want to explore myself - but you find someone who is interested in relationships in a trans-egotistical way (women want babies completely different agenda!). Anyway there are friends and society instead :-) As Buddha reminded Ananda the spiritual path is all about spiritual relationships (when Ananda suggested it was half private and half public).

The crude answer then to the question about whether Godel discovered or made the Incompleteness Theorems is NULL. This is not a trivial or unsatisfactory answer but exact. The point is to understand that these types of questions are pushing outside the framework of Reality that we are habituated to. The idea that there is a meta level that informs even the most solid worldly constructs is a bit of a Matrix like revelation. This is what the SIH is trying to prove - the God or Horatio Principle as I think I monikered it once. By way of analogy there is Cantors infinite infinities... each infinity implying a greater infinity. So the SIH means that every self ()existing entity) implies an other.