There are aligned problems in logic here. If the description of a system (pick a card, any card: mathematics, material reality [a.k.a. physics], sentience, digital transformation, cybersecurity, culture, science, politics, language, etc.) is also a component element of that system, the fact that the description itself becomes subject to it’s own self-inflected introspection invokes intractable paradoxes of self-containment. It doesn’t really matter how you try to suspend disbelief in the omnipresence of this logical enigma because whatever you do to explain it or define contingent displacements for it, it always returns.
The solution here is quite plausibly to NOT attempt to find a specific solution for a unique or partial instance of such a globally-distributed enigma, but rather, to interpret the problem as being one that by definition (and all available, empirically-derived) evidence is actually and counter-intuitively undefinable, that is – beyond the epistemological and psychological orientation towards teleological explanatory closure through which human beings assert meaning and direction in and to their lives. Solutions and explanations here are as much a counter-intuitive discontinuity as are the problems.