>>14244857Infinitist math ASSUMES platonism is true. And there's not just one platonism, there are many, depending on what kind of things you accept exist and have definite states. If you assume all first order statements about natural numbers have definite truth values, that's arithmetic platonism. It's strictly weaker than set theoretic platonism, which assumes that every first order statement in the language of set theory has a definite truth value. You can even go beyond that, talking about statements about universes of sets, etc. You can do something seemingly silly by forming an arbitrary first order language with some function symbols and constants, and then imagining that statements in that language correspond to statements of fact about some kind of ill-defined platonic objects, and then be that kind of platonist. This may or may not be compatible with previous kinds of platonism, especially if you identify some substructure with the natural numbers.
