I would like to see someone characterize this argument in the language of academic philosophy—because the ingredients of the argument are definitely familiar, even if the combination is original.
E.g., the first part is a naturalistic ontology of math, the second part is constructivism as in Carnap and Chalmers, and the third part argues that mathematical Platonism doesn’t help explain why there are physical laws.
I would like to see someone characterize this argument in the language of academic philosophy—because the ingredients of the argument are definitely familiar, even if the combination is original.
E.g., the first part is a naturalistic ontology of math, the second part is constructivism as in Carnap and Chalmers, and the third part argues that mathematical Platonism doesn’t help explain why there are physical laws.