I'm not making a philosophical or theological argument here.
Well, I was making one. Math describes the patterns in the universe. If the universe were different, math would be different as well.
You can write programs that put basic logic, laws of nature, causality, whatever upside down and back to front. So for any "being" inside that program, the programmed universe would work according to that weird logic. So if those beings were to describe how their universe worked, they would come up with a different math. And they would not be able to understand the real world/outside world math their outside creator/programmer used.
Are you arguing that conclusions in "theoretical" physics cannot be wrong if math proves it? The problem I see is the translation to and from math. Ptolemy and Kepler both used math to plot the orbits of the planets. Despite the conflict between the models, are you saying they were both correct?
Not sure were you're going with this. They used the same
math on different models, didn't they? They had different assumptions and thus conflicting results, but they used the same language to describe their models. Kepler didn't go "I'm going to use a math where 1*2 = 3 do describe planet orbits", while Ptolemy went "I'm using math where 1*2 = 4 to make my calculations".