Lets see if you can get your heads round something a bit more substantial that Sara Jessica Parkers tits or whether Fur faggots have sheepskin pants. Does mathematics and physics exist independantly to humans, ie all the laws of maths and physics exist no matter if we have discovered them or not (Platonism) or do theoretical laws only become tangible when formulated (Einstienianism) I am of the former category. After all, the laws of maths and physics were needed fromthe moment the inflation started. The close packing constant had to be 0.74048 from that moment otherwise the rest of the universe couldnt have formed. So i vote Einstien is talking out of his arse.

I would call myself neither. We don't know whether the laws of physics we have discovered can change in other universes or dimensions.

Thats irrelevant. The point is do they exist independant of human thought? Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two. This was proven by a guy called John Wiles, in a 100 page proof for which he got a knighthood. Now, did that law exist before we came along? Or was it he mathematical equivalent of one hand clapping ?

wow, a handful of issues First: Are you talking about General Platonism, or (more like) mathematical platonism only? Second: When you say Einstienianism (WTF is that, mate???) I suspect you mean Formalism, amrite? Third: What has to do the value (ramdomly determinated or not, that's another topic entirely) of a cosmological constant with the validity of mathematics as a reality outside the human mind? Four: Do you really think that the "concept of triangle" is more substantial than SJP titties?

this is impossible as unformulated concepts could not function until they were concieved of. Since the theory must be based upon evidence that can only exist until the theory itself does. unless by 'theoretical' you mean 'imaginary'.

I guess I'm a Platonist. I mean, understanding is independent of function. PROOF: Appletards have no idea how a computer works, yet they're generally still [at least somewhat] able to use one.

at 10^-43 seconds after the BigBang, the Laws of Physics as we know them were inevitable, ergo mathematics as we know it was inevitable. Therefore all laws of science would have existed and operated even if no human existed. Even if no Appletards ever existed, the science to enable Apples to be created would still exist, but not documented. SJP's tits are definitely more substantial than the concept of a triangle, but I like Nicki Minajs' rack better. [insert gratuitous tit image here]

Were they? Amazing!, if you have proof of that, any proof, next Nobel is yours... Anyways, are the values of the cosmological constants the determining factor of the internal coherence of mathematics, and then logic? I don't think so, not at all I don't think Russell, in the Principia Mathematica, resorted to any of those to prove that 1+1=2, which is one of the crucial aspects of this question Nor Gödel to prove the necessary incompletness of even self-consistent systems, which is another crucial point And, by the way, I tend to mathematical platonism...but I think the question goes way deeper than to argue the "existence" of inevitable abstract entities in this universe, which is what you seem to try, but in all possible universes...

eerr..so Formalism, which is a term which is at least a century old, is a newer word than "Einstienianism", which for all that I know, is a term you just invented... vat?

I like to go even further and say,"All things are discovered, it is all just the result of a few basic concepts exponentialised by mathematics."

The difference seems to be whether you believe reality exists as an extension of our perception or whether reality exists in spite of our perception. I would like to point out that we wouldn't have algebra if we didn't use Arabic numerals and we only started using those relatively recently. Roman numerals are what Europeans used and they can't be used to symbolize a zero, even though the zero exists. OR DOES IT? (No, it's the lack of existence that defines a zero.)

oh, wow, that's deerp Maybe when u're done playing retard, you could answer the relevant underlaying question about if they made things or merely "unearth" them

Reality. They try to interpret reality and translate it to their own language. It makes more sense than calling them "explorers" or "inventors."

I think that's what they are talking about when calling themselves "explorers", not the salacot thing... If you can "hear the music of the spheres", I suppose you can also "play Livingstone on his scale model" Metaphors duel FTW