bubble_chart Content

Self-reference, as the name implies, means pointing to oneself, and is one of the core issues in philosophy. It easily leads to paradoxes, contradictions, or infinite regress. The following are a few common self-referential paradoxes:

• The Liar's Paradox: "This statement is false." If this statement is true, it contradicts what it states; if it is false, it means its statement is true ── both are contradictory!
• Self-reference of Will: I will that "I have no will at this moment." Do I have a will or not?
• Program Recursion: A function calls itself: f() = { ...f()... }. If the program is not written well, it easily crashes!
• Russell's Paradox: Consider "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves." Does it contain itself?
• The Barber Paradox: The barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves. Should he shave himself?  
• The eye wants to see itself: Wanting to see oneself is self-reference. It is difficult without using a reflective device like a mirror. The same goes for a camera wanting to film itself.
• Darkness under the lamp: A lamp wanting to illuminate its own base is self-reference. It is also difficult without using a reflective device.
• A ruler cannot measure itself: If a ruler wants to measure its own length, this is also self-reference. It is impossible without another ruler.

When the phenomenon of "self-reference" appears in a system, it easily gets stuck, crashes, or produces contradictions.

When the concept of "I" is generated, a "darkness under the lamp," an "inescapable recursive function," and a "self-reference" appear in this universe. Because when "I" tries to understand "I" with "I", it is like wanting to use an eye to see the eye itself, or using a ruler to measure the ruler's own length; one will fall into an unjustifiable "self-referential paradox." To resolve such a paradox, one must introduce another "thing." For example, if an eye wants to see itself, there must be a mirror. If a ruler wants to know its length, there must be another ruler.

The Halting Problem

The halting problem is one of the most famous and mind-bending logical paradoxes in computer science, proposed by the father of computer science, Alan Turing, in 1936. 

The question is: Can we write a "universal program checker" where, if any code is input into it, it can respond with 100% accuracy whether this program will eventually finish executing (halt) or fall into an infinite loop (run forever)?
Turing's answer is: This is absolutely impossible mathematically and logically.

Suppose there is a universal function H(f) that can determine whether the user-inputted function f will halt (the program finishes smoothly) or enter an infinite loop (the program runs forever).
Turing created a rebellious function P to challenge H: when P executes, it first takes itself as a parameter to ask H, and then deliberately does the exact opposite. If H answers that P will halt, P starts an infinite loop and never ends. If H answers that P will loop infinitely, P immediately halts and ends.
Now, if P is inputted as a parameter to H, that is, H(P), what result will it get?
If H answers "it will halt," then P will read this result during execution and deliberately enter an infinite loop. If H answers "it will fall into an infinite loop," then P will also read this result during execution and halt immediately.
Result: H instantly crashes! Because no matter how it answers, it is doomed to be wrong.

Turing's Halting Problem tells all software engineers: there is no perfect debugging tool that can automatically scan and guarantee that all code will not crash or fall into an infinite loop. It proves that no single program can perfectly understand all programs. 

Solutions to Self-Referential Paradoxes

To solve (or avoid) such self-referential paradoxes, the most classic and effective philosophical and logical solution is to introduce a "meta-level." 

To resolve self-referential paradoxes, the philosopher Bertrand Russell proposed the "Theory of Types." He believed that paradoxes arise because "things within a system" are allowed to encompass or judge "the system itself."
Solution: Strictly divide hierarchies (introduce a meta-level). In the Halting Problem, function P belongs to the "first order," while the universal function H that can judge P must be of the "second order (meta-level)."
Rule: Lower-order functions cannot call higher-order functions. Under the strict rules of the Theory of Types, writing code to call H from within P is illegal, fundamentally prohibiting the possibility of paradoxes from occurring. 

The logician Alfred Tarski proposed that a language system cannot define its own "truth or falsity."
Object Language: The logic by which function P in the Halting Problem operates.
Meta-language: The language used to discuss whether P will halt (i.e., the logic of H).
Philosophical implication: If H is to predict P with 100% accuracy, then H cannot be in the same dimension as P. H must stand from a higher "God's-eye view" (meta-level) to observe P.

Turing's proof points out that: in the existing computer system, both H and P are ordinary programs on the same level, so H is doomed to fail.

Turing's Halting Problem is actually the embodiment of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems in computer science.
Gödel proved that: in any sufficiently complex logical system, there must exist propositions that are "neither provable as true nor provable as false." Only by stepping out into a higher meta-level, a more powerful logical system, can their truth or falsity be determined.

Philosophical implication: A person cannot lift themselves up by pulling their own hair, an eye cannot see itself, and a blade cannot cut its own handle. Any system, as long as it is powerful enough to generate self-reference, will inevitably produce blind spots. To see this blind spot clearly, you must jump to a higher meta-system.

However, introducing a meta-system may not perfectly solve all problems either. For example, Gödel's theorem includes another possible deduction ── infinite regress. If system B is the meta-level of system A, since B is a sufficiently powerful new system, a new proposition "this proposition cannot be proven in system B" can also be constructed within B. For this, a higher meta-system C must be established. By analogy, this forms an endless shell of systems.

Awareness is the Meta-level

From a materialist perspective: the brain is matter, yet it produces awareness, and awareness in turn controls matter. This is a strange loop, which is actually self-reference. Based on the previous discussion, let's make a philosophical analogy and extrapolation: awareness is not a miracle emergent from matter, but a meta-level that must exist in the universe. 

Whether it is Turing's Halting Problem, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, or human awareness, the core logic is the same: to truly understand, judge, or observe a system, there must exist a "meta-space" that is larger than it, can contain it, but is not bound by its rules. This meta-space contains the system, but is outside the system. "I" can "illuminate and perceive" that I am conscious, thinking, and feeling; this perceiver, 𝕊, is the meta-level, and It does not belong to everything that is perceived. "I" is a product of the self-referential paradox, a stuck recursion. And awareness 𝕊 is that "meta-position" that jumps out of this recursion. That is, 𝕊 maps out 𝕀 and 𝕆, but is outside of 𝕀 and 𝕆. 

Humans use their eyes to see the world, seeing "brightness, darkness, and colors," and humans "know" they are seeing. The eye is an organ of the 𝕆-world, "brightness, darkness, and colors" are qualia of the 𝕀-world, and 𝕊 is the source that can illuminate, perceive, and reflect all of this. "Knowing" is not a function of the eye or the physical body, but an inherent capacity of awareness 𝕊. 𝕊 is the meta-level, therefore it is impossible to use the rules of the 𝕀-world to understand 𝕊. But you can "become" 𝕊 ── that is, jump out of the self-limiting bodily illusion ring of the 𝕆-world, and return to that awareness 𝕊 that is fundamentally "there."

The reason materialism finds it difficult to explain "I" is not because it is not advanced enough, but because it attempts to use things within the system (brains, neurons, evolution) to explain the very prerequisite that makes the system itself possible ── awareness. This is essentially a "self-referential paradox." "I" is the most fundamental self-referential structure in the universe, and it is precisely this structure that prevents "I" from being found in the 𝕀-world. Because "I" is always the subject that is "searching," not the object that is "found."

Summary

People indeed experience meaning, value, and purpose beyond 𝕆. According to the aforementioned logic, the 𝕆-world must have a meta-level to endow it with meaning, otherwise 𝕆 is purely a collection of facts ── no meaning, no value, no why, only what is. Therefore, the meta-level of 𝕆 must exist; It is 𝕊, which is that which everyone can perceive in the present moment, that which can render qualia and meaning. 𝕊 reflects the subjective world 𝕀, and the common rules within 𝕀 are 𝕆. The relationship among these three is:

𝕊 → 𝕀 ⊃ 𝕆

In daily life, 𝕊 is the awareness that "I" use every day; it is the observing subject, not the observed object. This is a very real feeling. Apart from 𝕊, nothing can be spoken of. 𝕊 renders the world 𝕀 in front of "I", and 𝕆 is the common rule generalized within the 𝕀-world, belonging as a part of 𝕀. That is:

• "I" cannot deny that "I" have experiences (the 𝕀-world).
• "I" cannot deny that "I" am experiencing (awareness 𝕊).
• The 𝕆-world is merely a model within "I"'s experience (a construct "I" use to explain experiences).
• Therefore, the 𝕆-world takes 𝕊 as its prerequisite, not the other way around.
• "I" am not "living in the 𝕆-world, and then accidentally produced 𝕊"; "I" am "acting as 𝕊, then reflecting out 𝕀, and then constructing the 𝕆 model within 𝕀."

This is not mysticism; this is the inevitable result of logic.