from the glacier

It has always amazed me that the members of the scientific community always base their branch of science as the queen. Paul Davies, for example, does so in "God and the New Physics". But every time a discipline speaks of more than its content - generalizing to say something about the universe or whatever - it falls into the trap of self reference. Statements about mathematics are themselves not mathematical, but meta-mathematical. A good example that most should be familiar with is the fifth postulate argument and the various attempts to "prove" it. Trying to reduce a fundamental axiom of plane geometry to a problem of geometry is confusing the meta- for the thing in question. All sorts of paradoxes and irrationality follows.

I think most paradoxes (parenthetically) resolve in some way to self-reference.

This sentence is false.

See? Clearly it is a problem of self-reference. Even if you look into particle physics the problems see to all arise from the same. Look at any Feynman diagram for the path of an isolated electron moving from point A to point B. At any time in the moving it can generate photons and "virtual photons" that stay or decay randomly, but those photons that stay can randomly degenerate into electron-positron (positron = anti-electron) pairs that combine to destroy each other and make new photons, which in turn either degenerate or form new matter/anti-matter pairs, which in turn - and magically the electron makes it to point B - now named a renormalized electron. Most Feynman diagrams are too complicated to even admit of mathematical calculation, but that is another digression. The relationship between the photon and the electron-positron pair, and the fluid movement back and forth between them forms a self-referential pair. If you can't speak of the electron moving without these other things coming to pass, which make up the moving electron, well, then.... then what? Perhaps particle physics has gone so far off base assuming the material reality of these things, and using these assumptions to prove other things that the self-reference contained therein is inherent in the flawed assumption of physical reality. Ouch. It really doesn't please me to say that.
But on the other hand, why don't they call the bulk of what is called physics philosophy, because they are plainly expanding beyond the horizon of pure experiment and observation. Slide out of the problem of meta-physics by turning it into metaphysics.
perhaps
I'd like to leave off with one slightly plagarized (with my own spin) thought:

Beitia's First Law of Physics:

Without true philosophy, physics will always resolve into contradictions, even if you take into account Beitia's first law of physics.