This is simply false, for at least three reasons. There are probably more. 1. Math can describe lots of universes that differ from observation. For starters,

This is simply false, for at least three reasons. There are probably more. 1. Math can describe lots of universes that differ from observation. For starters, just look at all the different kinds of space-time there could be. 2. On top of that, even the math that we have that describes our current universe is...tricky: the math at the core of our two best physical theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) is inconsistent, i.e. they both cannot be true at the same time. Lots of our greatest minds have tried to find a mathematical formulation that makes the two compatible, but so far none have succeeded. So there may not actually be a mathematical formulation. 3. And finally, nature is under no obligation to be describable mathematically. That it is so describable is a fortuitous circumstance, and one we might be finding the limits of (see (2)). "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...