Self-Reference is impossible!!

There is a problem with T= {T} but not under that disguise.

Consider the universal set U = {A,B,C} where

A = {10}
B = {1,2}
C = {3,4}

Now construct the set D = {x : x = 2} i.e. the set of all set with 2 members.

D = {B,C}

But D has 2 members so,

D = {B,C,D}

but now it has 3!

Either way D is an exception to it own rule. There is something wrong with the set construction.

There was no problem up to defining D = {B,C} but then we noticed that D was a new set which was an exception to its rule. Exactly! D is a "new" set and not a member of the Universal U = {A,B,C}. D is created from the universal U and creates a new universal in the process U* = {A,B,C,D}. So correctly its like this...

U = {A,B,C}

A={10}
B={1,2}
C={3,4}
D = {x : x e U & x = 2} (where e means "a member of")

Which also creates a new universal U* = {A,B,C,D}

Thus T = {T} is a trick of language because it should be written T = {x : x e U & ... } and T is not a member of the universal U.

The only way around this is to leave an unbound floating symbol in the universal definition...

i.e. U = {A,B,C,D} where D = nothing i.e. it is unbound and we reference it later ... but that is the point: a system requires an empty symbol to refer to itself - which doesn't become bound to the system until AFTER it picks up its reference. Self reference is indeed impossible.

This also solves a similar problem...

U = {A,B} where

A = {1,2,3}
B = {4,5,6}

now construct
C = {x : x = 3}

there are 2 answers

C = {A,B}
or
C = {A,B,C}

Now C refers to the same set i.e. {x : x = 3} but the axioms of set theory state that 2 sets are only the same when they have the same members and clearly

{A,B} /= {A,B,C}

However

C = {x : x e U & x = 3} solves it neatly.

Hypothesis: Self reference is only apparently possible if the symbol space/solution space/universe/etc is not properly defined.

===

Just a start but if self reference is impossible then that opens up the whole world. The limit cannot be expressed within the limit. Thus returning to the start the ideas of "materialism" cannot account or refer to itself (obvious really since ideas are not material). And, 2 sided positions fail because such dualistic argument works on the basis that "I am correct" and "you are wrong" but if no system can refer to itself without expansion then no such self-assured "I am x" is possible. War for one can never be justified since ultimately a "self" consistent argument would have to expand indefinitely to include the enemy at least! (And, G-d is out of the picture 4 sure - originally there was no symbol for Him)