> If it is known that A is provably true then one can study the consequences of A being true

But one can already study the consequences of P=NP right now. You don't need to know that it's provably true in order to do that.

Knowing an actual proof would be useful, but an oracle revealing merely that it's true (or even provable) without telling you the proof does not let you do anything you couldn't do before.

In this case won't this oracle also tell you what is the consequences as soon as it tells you RH is true and also much more? At this point what is the point of you knowing what is true and what is not?

Someone claimed it would be "useful", without saying what for. Hence the questions "what for?". To try to shame people for that question in the name of science of all things is wild.

The whole point why anyone cares about these proofs is that the things we learn as we make the proof might add value, proving p = np itself isn't interesting, that knowledge has no application and therefore no value in itself.

I have published mathematics so I do value knowledge, but for most of mathematics the value of the knowledge isn't the thing you try to prove it is all the things you learn as you try to prove it. p = np is one such thing.

So the whole interesting bit about it is the proof, not the fact.