They're incognoscible in the sense that our models are very complicated metaphors, and that meta-modelling process runs out of steam at some level which we don't understand.

It's philosophical Dunning-Kruger. We don't know what we don't know. Our models are patchwork associations that have some experiential consistency, and appear "logical" based on our subjective experience of what logic is.

But that's all they are. There is no automatic implication they're complete, or even that it's possible for them to be complete.

We usually assume that limitation doesn't exist. But that seems very naive and optimistic.