Trying to argue that beliefs do not exist is like trying to argue that arguments do not exist. I just do not understand why hard-nosed philosophers are so afraid to grant the existence of abstract objects. It is no criterion of existence that something can be pointed to, or subsumed under physical laws. And, besides, what are laws? Nothing more than the set of propsoitions expressed by law-like sentences. If this is true, then the claim that everything is physical becomes senseless, for that very claim depends on the existence of propositions.

I predict an occupation with the nature of abstract objects in the next 20 years. All that is required for this shift is one interesting publication on the topic. I have a negative proposal. But my positive proposal might take 19 years to work out. You cannot have one without the other.

Thesis.
Antithesis.
Synthesis.