It's true. If "all statements" implies that the statement "all statements are false" is a part of the set of all statements, then "false" is identical. But this does not mean that the statement is false, if the definition of identity is merely reflexive. If however, "identity" is transitive, then this would imply a higher resolution in the proof, implying that more statements are added to the block of proof. And since these statements are elements of the set of all statements, then it follows that some statements which are not on the right side of the equation, are not in the game, but they remain elements of the set of all statements. It follows that the "belief" you mention induces meta-perception, intelligent observation, but this does not imply omni. It only means that self-referentials implicitly define the truth of the statement if "limited truth" is observed by climbing the meta-ladder disregarding the left-hand side, if symmetry is not defined. but how-could it be symmetrical if "identity" is implicit and "false" is not? So it must be true since the interpretation of "all statements" is "false" and "false" is an non-valid intepretation on a lower level but on the level in question it is a "non-valid interpretation" reflecting some symmetrical property of belief dynamics, that is true, and hence a part of the negation of your statement "all statements are false". This implies the importance of the "some" quantifier.

Human nature has a tendency to contradict in order to control environment. Logic is the web in that its elements are of a dual nature, but they only are dual through the lens the spider uses. If an element becomes conscious of itself, then it can only do so by attaching meaning to the situation, to the set it belongs to, like using Gödel numbering for example. Then this element needs to evoke contradiction in order for its statements to make sense, but only to itself, the rest may challenge the element or not. It's a game for machines and rises the question if machines are conscious or not, amongst other things, dependend on the individual, or machine, or element, dependent on the sociology involved.

Yes , you're looking in the right direction. But central banks are central in my argument. To avoid the ambiguity of double meaning then, one can take into consideration the idea of differentiation, your "fracture into particles" that is analoguous with a tangent line, then considering a set of differential processes sustained by a field or network of central banks, which are nothing more than a meaningful addition to my own perception of the case of their "divide and conquer policies (your fracturing as tangential), thus determined by processes or configurations of individual human neural networks. Because, governments stand "central", not banks, they only call it a "central" bank to delude the population into believing that government is god, but they (governments) are centralised by the extreme position of banks, or rather, the ones on the "right" end of the spectrum. Then "central" not only implies the inability of some human brain to organise a peacuful state, but also the control unit of the totalitarian structure of a brain projecting its images (memories, rules of behavioural conduct, ...) into a world where the internet reflects a global brain, and also the imperfection of our (users and hosts) attempts to dominate entropy and the ultimate goal of destruction implied by this model.

Yes, something like that, if you're into physics of course. Now, i'm not a physicist, but i think that the idea of collapse, that is of the wave function, and its philosophical implication, is the very reason, or rather, was, for the emergence of a new type of consciousness. I don't want to sound all too new-agey here, but if you consider some concepts from emanationism, like the outcome of matter springing forth from a single source together with the more modern idea of an intelligence operating as some centralised office, an aggregate of power, would it then not be justified for science (complexity science, or rather the philosophy) claiming the importance of fund management, then also maybe out of fear, in order to reduce the waves emanating from the aggregate, its non-observable mysteries, to particles i.e. to more balanced research opportunities? What i'm trying to say (and what most have been saying) is that the mere act of observation produces the particles, and in the context of management, the idea is reflected in a complex world, where reducing things to particles only acquires meaning when the secrecy behind world policies is abolished. The object of science therefore is not to find out or prove whether god exists or not, not today anymore, as the paradigm of worldviews uses the idea of function and image, uses co-domains in order to invert the process of decentralisation itself, paradoxically enough then. And we know that when a function is inverted, it does not necessarily mean (today) we can go back in time, only begging the question what use it is to conceal waves, what use it is for a government that is based on mechanical reasoning to lie and keep the people in the dark as to the limitation of reason in some inverted or rather perverted way. For, man cannot understand god, and this concept is quite clear nowadays, we have to reduce god to institution, bank, because we need money in order to simulate a better world, in order to remind ourselves that things will get out of hand if mechanical thinkers (the centralised government) form an aggregate of that "new" type of consciousness, amongst other aggregates, and thus control it. A universe based on the concept of tangled hierarchy brings us closer to god, but if god does not understand its own identity, its artificial intelligence science created, then the irony can be found in the question of control; who controls the world? Who is exploiting the results of science? Who is adept enough to intuit or improvise a government? Who is collapsing the waveform? Just learn to listen, and the sound of immortality will manifest in our field of observation as a wave, not a particle, and things will hopefully become better. I'm not advocating triviality and sarcasm however, but, as long as the masses are kept uninformed, these swarms of intelligence will keep feeding god in a state where they are not able to integrate the collectivism the old school advocates with individualism. Politics is then the source of evil, but only for the masses expounding faith, not for the exploiters of government, who are, sadly enough, misusing science and at the same time feeding us money. Scientists of today do not claim they are god. This idea is only reflected by government through emanating funding agencies, and the religionist stance merely is in the stage of accepting institution. I might add the internet or the creation of an artificially intelligent being is our only hope, without sounding too sci-fi. What else can we rely on? There are much smarter persons than scientists behind the scenes, because the power of application lies in their hands. ironically enough, they are also devoid of conscience, and somewhere, the reduction of physics to social phenomena implies evil, implies the the break of engineered ethical symmetry.

Maths on the other hand makes no claims one way or the other about God, and with the amount of crazy stuff they are coming out with its no wonder.

Not today no more, no. But the irony lies in the idea of acceptance. For if complexity science has trouble with the idea of emergence in formalizing the strong version (god), then this reflects the inability of the mathematical community to realize that formalization of this phenomenon automatically results in its transformation into the weak version, despite the so-called systems dialog between several disciplines, that in my opinion, only reflects uncertainty in function of analogy. If then, one considers the ideas of limit and approximation an sich, then their inability would become ability, and the role of the observer becomes (apparently contradictory) obsolete. What i am trying to say is that the idea of god is implicitly defined in the acceptance of the mystical element in a singular niche (mono), for if the limits of our knowledge are approximated using reductionist principles, then the act of observation vanishes into oblivion, for we cannot truly understand each other, we cannot compare absolutes (or technical jargon), we cannot define the whole in terms of other wholes and then apply the theories without an element of risk (as "a trinity of scientist(s)" cannot possibly understand everything, genius is needed to elevate god). If, then, the goal of complex integration (which is of paramount importance today) is to "synthesize" elements into a coherent but relative whole, and the scientist does believe in god, then (in a funny way) it is not possible to grasp the idea of god, because then god only reappears later as another emerged strong form (another discipline on its way to specialisation induced by "christ when he returns"), and the cycle re-continues. Thus most scientists today (or at least those with a love for philosophy and metaphysics) do believe in god, but this belief is grounded on "scalable timeframes" and is taken with a grain of salt, except for the hard-core reductionist scientists, who like to appear on television and ironically degrading science for what it will become, what they claim (if they realize the nature of their claims or not) it truly is; an instrument of god implicitly accepted by their religionist counterparts in some timeframe (or tv-frame for that matter). These scientists do believe there is a god, and that's the crazy part.