A point I have made many times is that mathematics defines its own rules to avoid contradictions, purely out of choice by mathematicians. When it ran into trouble with "set", it found a new definition. That doesn't surprise me at all, it's a very nice mathematical game. Chess is nice too. But what I am looking at is our means for conceptualizing reality, and the limitations of logic on that, not the contortions that mathematics can go through to avoid contradictions. So if you say the technical meaning of "set" doesn't allow my construction, I will simply define a technical meaning that does, and call it a "gleezbo". How is the mathematics I'm doing any different from yours? It isn't, it just leads to contradictions. Even mathematics can lead to contradictions-- do you deny it? Do you not realize that there is nothing in mathematics itself that rules out contradictions, it is only the way we choose to do it which avoids them?

__________________
Physics doesn't predict the future, it predicts the past that hasn't happened yet.

There are two kinds of delusions, the obvious kind that clearly don't work, and the insidious kind that clearly do.