1) All mathematical objects exist abstractly and independently of minds (mathematical Platonism)<p>Without a mind to understand, interpret, and define mathematics, does it exist? This is a core philosophical problem at the intersection of science and feeling. Without observation, no mathematics exists (for the observer). By proving it exists, you must also have an implicit observer.<p>2) The mind is a computational process (The Computational Theory of Mind or CTM)<p>Pretty big assumption, considering we still have no idea how the mind works (e.g. quantum fluctuations that lead to patterns and thoughts, the origin of which are not known to us or predictable by us.)<p>3) The universe behaves according to laws of physics which are expressible mathematically (metaphysical naturalism)<p>What about where those laws break down, such as inside a black hole or at the beginning of the Big Bang? Do those places and times extend beyond our Universe? If so, where exactly do you draw the line between where our Universe ends and something else exists?<p>These arguments feel quite tenuous to me, another attempt by an intelligent person to say, &quot;Ah, I&#x27;ve figured it all out, THIS is how everything is.&quot;