> Math can describe lots of universes that differ from observation. This has all been hashed out already. Look up the mathematical universe hypothesis and Wolf

> Math can describe lots of universes that differ from observation. This has all been hashed out already. Look up the mathematical universe hypothesis and Wolfram's Ruliad for two different but similar approaches. The basic idea is that all consistent mathematical objects exist, and we simply inhabit one of them. The fact that QM and GR are inconsistent with each other is not an issue because they describe different universes in mathematical space that are close but not equal to our own. > And finally, nature is under no obligation to be describable mathematically. That it is so describable is a fortuitous circumstance That too is a conjecture. There is exactly zero evidence that nature is non-mathematical, but people who keep saying this are basically insisting that it's effectiveness at describing reality is simply a continuous chain of grand coincidences. To say this is statistically implausible bordering on impossible is the kindest way to put it.