There is no need to argue here, I think. If biology determines us, than it follows that biology determines that I think “I have free will” or “I am determine by biology”. Argument does not determine which to choose, biology does. I guess it is time to close this forum, so sad I was beginning to enjoy myself.

Reminds me of the philosophical puzzle “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

I wonder if a virtual particle pop in and out existence is this coming from some unseen world?

“Rather, he talks about a historical chain of reference transmission, and he is pretty clear about the mechanism by which the reference is historically transmitted: after the initial dubbing by an individual, other people intend to use the name to refer to whatever was dubbed by that individual.”

What is being transmitted historically? Not the thing referenced obviously. Not the name itself, that is obviously base on historical record? A concept? That sounds like how the name is associated with descriptive content. Some essence stipulated in every possible world? Sounds like a concept/idea.

If I say this name in the initial dubbing while recording it. Then play the recording for infinity. Is the reference being historically transmitted every time the record sounds the name? Sounds are being preserved over time for sure.

This is all very odd. Maybe nothing at all is being historically transmitted. Just another abuse of language by a philosopher.

The first alien world I visit the population has the same symbolism for math, develop the same proofs, and apply the math the same way. I think to myself there must be some underlying objective reality for this math. I move on to my second alien world and find this population has the same symbolisms and proofs but do not use math at all. There is no application of math in science, business, or sport. I ask someone why is this so, and they reply because these symbols and rules are very beautiful and that is enough for us. I begin to wonder about my belief about underlying objective realities. The last planet I visit again has the same symbols and proofs but there is a problem. Most of time the answers they get for math problems is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. There seems to be no consensus on which is right. Additionally, there application of math is sometimes successful and sometimes not. I begin to think to myself that maybe all this talk about underlying objective realities is irrelevant, and what is more interesting is how alien species handle symbols in their worlds.

. . + : = . :

If one invented symbolism “2 + 2 = 4” for the above reality, they may not find much success. However, “2 + 2 = 3” might have some use. My grounds are does the symbolism produce some value in its application to experience.

I have invented the following symbolism “1 + 1 = 2” and I discover that it has many applications in life. What else is there say? Do we add anything of value to say “and by the way there are these eternal things out there that correspond to these symbols” If one said “We have proven they do not exist” What am I suppose do? Give up Mathematic?

I could imagine a life form similar to us but only sees the differences in objects and thus has a primitive concept of “one”. Not sure how successful such a being will be in this universe, but definitely will go about their business differently than us.

If we said mathematicians neither discover or invent but act mathematically in a harmonized way, would this suffice to give it the metaphysical foundation we long to have? If you ask why do we harmonize, I would say because we are similar in out make up and live in the same world.

Or could we simply turn it around, and say the world causes us to react mathematically? No need to talk about inventions and discoveries.

How to verify a causeless effect, consider the following:

1. Some large stone is at rest, and at the very same time one person on one side of the stone pushes the stone with the same force in the direction of another person who at the same time pushes the stone in their direction with the same force. The stone does not move. Is this an example of a cause with no effect?

Ok, let us reverse “the movie” and watch the stone move the two people while at rest. Would this be a “causeless effect” or do we want to say the rock caused the people to move?

Here is an easy one. Nothing caused the mathematical constant pi. It just us.

Theists, atheists, and agnostics are trapped in a ill conceived language game. They long for the comfort of language about every day objects that their debates just don’t provide.

It may be more helpful to understand the fruitfulness of an idea, to acknowledge a spectrum of senses of “there is”, and to have the freedom to choose based on what has been presented.

Yep, a metaphysics need not have any relevancy to the world we experience, or it can make us see the world in only one way

Would Kripke say a proper name refers to the same person in all possible worlds or a proper name is stipulated in all possible worlds? I think the latter.

In each scenario, the same object walks into the room.

1. An object walks in a room and I name this object “Gell Mann.” “Gell Mann” could not have been the famous American physicist. When I think truly that “Gell Mann” could have been a lawyer, I am referring to Gell Mann, the object I named “Gell Mann”.

2. An object walks in a room. Tattooed on the object is the letters “Gell Mann”. The object with the tattooed letters “Gell Mann” could not have been the famous American physicist.” When I think truly that object with the tattooed letter “Gell Mann” could have been a lawyer, I am referring to the object with the tattooed letters “Gell Mann”.

3. An object walks in a room. I observed this object and come up with a complete description of this object based on what I can observe. The object I completely described could not have been the famous American physicist.” When I think truly that this object I completely described could have been a lawyer, I am referring to that object I had completely described.

Analysis:

Does it matter whether we call this naming or describing, the function it serves is the same, to communicate to avoid misunderstanding. For example, in scenario #3, if someone ask me who could not have been the famous American physicist, I reply with the complete description of the object. This keeps re-occurring with different people, I decide I need to provide an abbreviated description, and call it “Gell Mann” Is this a description or a name, does it matter as long as I avoid misunderstanding?

Though not know as “Common Sense” philosophers I believe these two quotes show a particular compatibility between two lines of their thought:

1. “Don’t ask: how can I identify this table in another possible world, except by its properties? I have the table in my hands, I can point to it, and when I ask whether it might have been in another room, I am talking, by definition, about it.” N&N SK

2 “Does it matter which we say so long as we avoid misunderstanding in any particular case” PI LW

A language user may intend to use a name in a particular way but with conversation they may learn if there is a common understanding of that name.