Physics uses math heavily–I fail to see the point you're making.
However, I see no significant differences in position about QM between me and Mario Bunge, famous scientist. :-/
Everything is fiction at hypotheses generation phase. It will be science only when it will be confirmed by an experiment and reproduced by some one else and withstand critics. String theory requires extra-dimensions, which are never seen, while my theories are doesn't, so they are less fictional.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=9368943224139680400
https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMCSR/article-full-tex...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3459540491989485865
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/PiP-2015-04.pdf#page=57
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=2136327572232256000
For example, OpenGL is used heavily to calculate pictures, which are looking close to reality, but we cannot use OpenGL to talk about reality.
Please, draw the line.
We can use math freely for predictions and to describe laws of nature. But we cannot use math to explain nature.
"Don't confuse the map with the territory".
His reasoning seems to be:
Math is used as a tool in physics to model reality.
But the mere use of math doesn't make such a model real. It could be still way off.
And his example is:
Similar to how we use math to model physical reality, we also use OpenGL (or 3D graphic APIs in general) to model real world objects (e.g. in movies).
Well, just like OpenGL doesn't correspond to some deeper reality (it's just a tool to make models, which could be totally non realistic), same is the case with math. It's just a tool we use to build physical models, it doesn't automatically lend legitimacy to those models (i.e. it's not like "this physics theory uses math so it must be correct representation of reality').
Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model.
Even if we know it's not always accurate, we can model the inaccuracies of the model and constrain how we apply it. NASA knows Newtonian physics is less complete than general relativity, but they still use Newtonian to plot routes through the solar system because it's good enough.
So, sure, mathematical physics is not reality. But unless someone has a better tool than mathematical physics for making predictions, merely pointing out that fact is a pointless. Scientists already know it... that's why they do science!
Telling a scientist "your theory is not complete yet" is like telling a writer "you haven't written the perfect book yet." Yeah--they know.
EDIT to clarify that, while I'm replying to coldtea, my comments are really directed at what v_lisivka is saying in this thread.
v_lisivka, you're not wrong, but you're also not adding anything of substance to the conversation. "Physics is not a complete description of reality" is a critique can be dropped into any discussion of physics, which means it does not add any value to a discussion of a specific topic within physics.
It's like saying "you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow" when someone is trying to plan a lunch date.
That's true, but that's not all the above says though.
It also says something else that _is_ actionable: don't just trust (or defend) a physics theory because it says it uses math or because it got its math right.
It could still be not just non corresponding with "real reality", but even get its predictions wrong.
You've got to fund somebody. So you fund the people with the math that looks good. Objecting to that is basically asking for unrestrained corruption. Crackpots certainly can't be relied upon to identify themselves.