Math's existence?

[hatsoff]

No, there aren’t any definitive answers to these questions. There are various philosophical factions that each have their own different answers.

I’m not even sure most working mathematicians find such philosophical speculation useful, much less definitive.

I have to agree. In my experience with actually doing math (as opposed to musing about metamathematics), this sort of thing simply never comes up. Even foundational math like ZFC doesn’t make any Platonic demands that I can tell.

I for one see no reason to posit a Platonic existence for numbers, logic or any other math concept.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Again, thanks for all of the ideas, help, and suggestions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have to agree. In my experience with actually doing math (as opposed to musing about metamathematics), this sort of thing simply never comes up. Even foundational math like ZFC doesn’t make any Platonic demands that I can tell.

I for one see no reason to posit a Platonic existence for numbers, logic or any other math concept.

no, in the calculation of math it doesnt. but even ZFC, and the peano arithmetic have their detractors. the only common thing i have seen in a look at metamathematics is a certain platonism. held privately perhaps, but seemingly fervently. there are simply too man non-empirical ideas and structures that demand a certain platonism, infinity, higher dimensional maths, etc. and that is where it comes from. im not saying thats right or wrong, but thats the opinion ive developed from the little ive read on the issue.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a different perspective on the foundations of mathematics by a working mathematician, Stephen Simpson. Instead of asking the standard ontological questions, he asks a very different set of questions, but the nice thing is that these new questions have more satisfying answers.

It’s a little bit deep mathematically, but I thought I’d post the link here just for completeness.

 

[didymus]

For those philosphers that hold math exists on its own, do they explain how?

Please do not laugh as these simple questions, do they explain how pi exists on its own?

Is math alive?

No.

If living, will it die?

See above.

Is math inanimate?

Yes.

How many threes are there?

One.

I think that some physical scientists believed math ran the physcial world, if so, how?

Yes/Beats me.

Does math animate the natural physcial laws? How?

Yes/Beats me.

Did it evolve?

Since it is not alive it did not evolve.

Did math evolve and then physcial matter?

No.

Did math evolve and then the physical laws evolve?

Good question. The math inheres in the physical laws so I’d have to say they came first, or maybe it’s one of those things that happened in the first 10^-100 seconds of the universe, the laws were up for grabs until they reached mathematical stability.

Is math eternal?

Is the univesre? If no, then math isn’t.

How do they handle such questions?

Dunno about them, I just take a wild stab – but then I’m a college dropout.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Just found another book on this subject:

The Reality of Numbers: A Physicalist’s Philosophy of Mathematics by John Bigelow (see here)

 

[sidbrown]

Found it - the essay “Is Mathematical Truth Time-Dependent?” by Judith Grabiner in New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics: An Anthology edited by Thomas Tymoczko (see here).

Thanks for this reference. Professor Grabiner argues for the development of mathematics, which I would agree with. There is another article in this book, by Hilary Putnam, What is Mathematical Truth. (page 49) click on Next to get to result 2 at the top. This article may be relevant to some of your questions.
books.google.com/books?id=HFa03eq-9LQC&lpg=RA1-PA202&dq=mathematics%20philosophy%20nineteenth%20century%20essays&lr=&pg=RA1-PA201#v=onepage&q=mathematics%20philosophy%20nineteenth%20century%20essays&f=false