Your arguments are weird and wrong.
First, it seems you never have worked in any other engineering discipline; then you would probably understand how the world works, and that all of our environment is mostly “continuous” (in a roughly math sense), i.e. predictable; but sometimes “chaotic”, i.e. unpredictable. For example, you might die in the next 10 minute interval due to a traffic accident; but most of the time, you don’t. Nothing special about this.
You connect the chaotic part of the world to the topic of provability — but this mixes a singular theoretical (diagonalization) argument with the assertion of practical properties of programs: There is no practically relevant connection between the two — do your homework in theory before claiming otherwise.
Then, you start with the rhetorical figure of talking about a controversial thought in conditionals: “If this is the case …”, “If we accept the premise…” Fine. But then, without any attempt whatsoever to make a case for these premises, you simply declare their consequences to be true, and that’s it.
Last, it seems you have — willingly or not — worked only in shops or areas that had a sub-professional way of working and dealing with the unknown. I wish you the very best with this attitude when you plan to build a house with your wife — she’ll be somewhat surprised whn you tell her or him that planning is useless, because the wolrd is chaotic anyway …