The intelligibility argument is a good example of a confusion that only exists if you assume uncertainty exists in the world and not in the mind. Seriously, if it exists only in the mind, then it's only up to the mind to dispel it. There's no need to reference reality, no need to reference truth, because intelligibility is a statement about the ability to draw maps which is exclusively a statement about mapmakers, and not the territory.
There already is a bunch of unintelligible stuff, like the analytical solution three body problem, computability of KC or computers translation, but they're unintelligible because we don't know how to solve them not because they have some magical property that can't be understood no matter what. And if they did, it's not going to be a philosopher who tells us.
Also, I can try to explain the probabilistic stuff relating to quantum mechanics, but I don't feel confident at all in doing it, would you mind if I do?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!