I often come across a certain view of mathematics being the analysis of all possible worlds.
Here is one way in which we may interpret this phrase.
Mathematics, by its stating of axioms and laws, establishes a set of conditions whereby phenomena is possible. By stating axioms, we state the conditions and rules upon which a world operates. We, in essence, construct the world.
If we adopt this view; then the mathematisication of physics is an attempt to state the laws that we do, in fact, hold of this world, such that it explains the way that things behave. A construction may fail or succeed insofar as it complies to experience. We may find, for instance, that “F=ma” is useful as a law; and we may presuppose further laws insofar as “F=ma” can be possible. Here is a tangential question: how many worlds are possible to create the present condition of the world, but via multiply different ancestries? Is it possible for me to be typing here before the laptop in other possible worlds where the past is different; where my Father is a different person, my genes are different, or the Elected preseident of Zimbabwe was Morgan Tsvangirai?
It would seem then, that it is difficult to say that a mathematical construction was “wrong”, but we may say, as a different claim, that the most useful construction is the one that succeeds to explain. Truth becomes a deflationary concept, where we employ a theory in virtue of pragmatic concerns