All good points, and I think we are entering into philosophy around what we mean by 'confirmation'. I believe that models are certainly wrong. I personally dou

All good points, and I think we are entering into philosophy around what we mean by 'confirmation'. I believe that models are certainly wrong. I personally doubt we have any models that actually reproduce the underlying mathematical structure of the universe (if it even exists, as you noted). ...But some models are useful. And when viewed from that perspective, a mathematical model can provide evidence that a hypothesis accurately explains an observed phenomenon, given a certain set of assumptions. I view validation of a model hierarchically, where a untested hypothesis gains credibility by increasing tests of the validity of its predictions. Direct experimental confirmation is the strongest, but this is almost always impossible, and so weaker forms of testing are necessary. Computational modeling certainly provides a weaker form of confirmation, from this perspective.