Which fields of science is Platonism actually true for apart

Would mathematical constants be considered Platonism? Because constants are extremely useful for Physics.

For example the speed of light (c), gravitational constant (G), planck's constant (h) etc

there are a lot of numbers that seem to be foundation to the universe

>>8740225
Those are phyisical constants

>>8740243
Physics thinks of these "constants" as timeless and independent of other factors, though. Pretty platonic

>>8740321
You could consider them platonic, but I don't think many people would buy that as these constants appear thanks to experimental evidence which is something rationalist don't like to much.

>>8740414
The question isn't "do Platonists like it". The question is "which fields of science is Platonism actually true". And platonism is true of physics because physical constants are pretty much exactly what they were taking about with timeless perfect numbers.

>>8740444
But assuming they are timeless is something we don't know. For all we know our measurement apparatus aren't precise enough or whatever. Mathematical ideas deduced rationally could exist as a form, but physical constants being platonic assumes a metaphysical position many rationalists oppose.

Physics therefore Chem

>>8740458
nobody takes the idea that physical constants change over time seriously. It's pretty much considered on the same level as schizophrenic rambling

>>8740214
Well, there are constants in physics and chemistry too.

>>8740527
I'm not saying is a good theory based on the evidence, but from a philosophical perspective we just don't know.