Math is true because it can be applied to nature. Without nature, math cannot exist.
Let me explain.
In the material world, TST reserves absolute truth for nature itself. Math truths belong to the ideas of minds and are representational. Math is not nature. Math earns truth through empirical application, not internal consistency alone. This is the Split: reality is one thing, and our ideas about it are another. We discover patterns and relationships in nature, then invent systems to describe them. Two rocks and two shells existed long before humans invented 2 + 2 = 4.
Take this question: Does 2 + 2 = 4 still exist in a realm with no universe? This gets to the heart. To whether math exists before or as part of reality. Because math requires reality, it requires laws of physics. Without a universe, there are no minds to construct ideas and nothing to describe. If physics can be shuffled, then I suspect math would emerge from the realities with stable patterns. But alas, now I’m speculating. If you’re assuming our physics, you’re bringing us back to our type of reality. Without established physics, anything we say is speculation.
An elegant math system alone does not establish correspondence with nature. Rational ideas must have empirical application to earn truth status; otherwise, they remain speculative. Perhaps we simply haven’t discovered their application yet, or perhaps there is an error we have yet to expose. Consider a magician who places two tokens in each hand, and then reveals five. Is math wrong or is our understanding incomplete? Clearly neither math nor reality itself changed. This illustrates why determining truth can be full of potholes, and why science is a process, not a set of conclusions.
Internal consistency is important, but it isn’t sufficient.
