>>9279592

You are right in your characterization of math, but you completely fail to see the most obvious flaw in you argument.

That flaw is that math actually has predictive qualities, while Newtons laws may be "wrong" or only "approximately true", they still enable us to make predictions about the real world.

In your whole post you are dodging this obvious point, if math has absolutely no relations to reality how could it predict reality in any way?

If ZFC is completely meaningless and just arbitrarily chosen by humans would you not expect that math could not possibly describe reality in any way.

>>9279698

Is an idiotic post, you don't even understand the question you are raising.

For your claim to have any value what so ever you have to demonstrate that math being able to describe reality with these axioms is just a coincidence.

And you have a lot of evidence piled up against you.