[NHQ]

You are right about the statement in question. I got mixed up, but I think the principal of "same difference" applies :D

He says, "If it [the statement] is proven, then a false statement is proven." (Proven true or false?)

I am not interpreting the statement "this statement cannot be proven" as true, as you do, or false.

What I argue is that one's interpretation has an effect, without which the statement is neither true nor false, but, as I claim, incidental. We can imagine the statement, but what we imagine is not the statement, even if it looks and smells like it.

Thus, the Schrodinger Card trumps the Goedel. The trick here is that I am standing outside of "the system", not permitting myself to enter paradox land. If you so much as look at me, I'll get sucked in.