From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber Tue Apr  7 23:23:28 EDT 1992
Article 4846 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber
>From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: The 'Big Bang' and the origin of 'mathematical  objects'
Message-ID: <kth7fnINNflu@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 92 17:14:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: orfeo


 If you take the view that the universe had an origin, and if
 you take that origin to be characterized by the 'Big Bang' theory
 elaborated in physical science research, then the origin of the
 universe entailed the creation of mass-time-energy and its
 constraint, within the first 10^(-(Sagan's billions) ) sec. ,
 to certain configurations.  These 'configurations' 
 'specified' in the 'original conditions' of the Big Bang
 are patterns, but they are not neccessarilly theories.
 It is reasonable to ask of the 'mathematical realists' to
 demonstrate how these initial configurational-constraints
 of the Big Bang entail the existence of "real mathematical objects".
 Apparently, the reason mathematical realists call 'it' "mathematical-
 realism", is that they assert the objective existence of mathematical
 objects as part of the totality of the universe (as distinguished from
 "spiritual objects" from beyond the great beyond).  Thus,
 "real mathematical objects" must be explainable, predictable consequences
 of a complete theory of the origin of the universe.


