Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind.
The over-all algebra of rational and irrational numbers is underdetermined by the algebra of rational numbers, but is smoother and more convenient; and it includes the algebra of rational numbers as a jagged or gerrymandered part.
Part IV I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find myself in a measure constrained to advert to them.
It is part of the grammar of the word 'rule' that if 'p' is a rule, 'p.
The order "red" cannot be said to describe a state of mind, e.g., a wish, unless it is part of a game containing descriptions of states of mind.
The words "possibility" and "necessity" express part of grammar, although patterned after their analogy to "physical possibility" and "physical necessity".
Just because a sentence is constructed after a model does not make it part of a game.
Nonsense can look less and less like a sentence, less and less like a part of language.
For the most part the answer "I" is a sign coming from a certain body.
When I am asked for a reason for the belief, what is expected, as part of the answer, is what I believe.