1. That honestly depends on if it is your time and right to help them. If you're helping them because you feel it makes you the star of their show, then it is never a good time to help. If you are at sea, and you are on a boat, and other men around you are in the water, you can only carry so many men that the boat will allow. However, pulling one man out will ultimately cause the rest to seek refuge as well, and the worst swimmers will capsize you.
2. Truth simply is, and cannot not be. There are a myriad of facets acting simultaneously. Alcohol is always alcohol, yet each chemistry uses alcohol in the lab their own way. Without a hint of subjectivity, life is denied free will and thus the Great Work without meaning. I see things paradoxically, the Prima Materia exists as people can mentally recognize it's existence or even speculate something to exist on that magnitude. However, the individual cannot exist without the spark of the Prima Materia as it is all. Then again, what is one? One is one, one can mean all or one can be singular. The definition of one itself is in favor of this paradoxical approach.
3. I generally see this in a light that similar in nature to a mighty tree in a woods. The tree is great and magnificent, it's branches scrape heaven, it's roots touch hell. It provides food and shelter for so many plants and animals. However, even a tree so mighty will one day succumb to rot, decay, damage, and more. It's trunk now home to a score of insects eating their way within. The largest tree in the forest is biologically recognized as the "mother tree" and carries information over centuries. When it is cut down, the mother tree releases all its stored nutrients to the surrounding saplings and other trees. Some trees require the destruction of fire for their reproduction

>It says that soemwhere out there there's a number that we can't prove exists? but how do we know that it's really out there if we can't prove it?
You have hit with the common misconception pseuds have when trying to bring the theorem into discussion.
But correcting you first, you're obfuscating the theorem by saying there are numbers that we can't prove that exists.
The actual pseud claim is that there are true statements in any axiomatic system that can't be proven true within the system. That's a poorly formulated statement that as is, isn't true.
The actual result of the theorem is that there are statements that can't be proven true or false, that can be formed with the language used in the axiomatic system. It doesn't mean that there are things that are true and cannot be proven, it quite literally means that you can't prove it true or false, and that isn't a hole, it means that there are statements that no matter how you look at it it's not gonna be true in general unless you add an axiom that says it is false or it is true.
So your intuition that "how do we know that it's really out there if we can't prove it?" agrees with what I think too, the vague statement faggots make when bringing up this theorem doesn't really follow from this theorem, as from outside the axiom system, the statement can be made true or false.
One such case predicted by this theorem, is the choice axiom (seen as a statement, though it has "axiom" in its name), it's known that it cannot be proven true or false under a certain axiom system. Mind you that that wasn't proved with Godel's incompleteness theorem. Since Godel's theorem only tells you that any axiom system has those statements, it doesn't tell you how they are found.
Godel or whoever else might have originally formulated it with or changed it to be "numbers" instead of statements from formal logic, but that IMO obfuscates the real meaning..