And there is 'the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in the biological sciences' discussed here: Does reality have axioms?
It's just symmetry. Continuous symmetries, and symmetries under transformation, are what makes physics work, and what make mathematics apply well to the part of science which focuses on the phenomena with relatively simple symmetries. Because number lines are an abstraction of continuous symmetries. And noting symmetries is the most efficient way to drop irrelevant data.
Euclid's geometry was thought to be fundamental, then you get Riemannian geometry, and Anti-deSitter space. Logic like mathematics was thought fully axiomatisable with self-evident axioms, then Godel. Mathematics and physics don't give privileged access to the world, but emerge from it because of it's regularities. And when we understand the world better, they change. And similarly with the laws of physics. There isn't a magic equation out there waiting for us, that solves everything, because the complexity of the universe is emergent, and the laws that govern it are regularities that emerge too. So they will never be complete. And neither will mathematics.
I would nominate the Wigner-VonNeumann interpretation as the single most misleading and problematic of all proposal for the quantum measurement problem. And as evidence of Wigner's choosing an additional time a kind of science-mysticism, that not only went far beyond the evidence but never withstood basic scrutiny.
I see this whole business of math-mysticism in the Analytic Tradition as Pythagoras' shadow, that Plato's Academy was Socratic method, plus Pythagorean math-cult. Tegmark is in the cult, getting misty-eyed over triangles, until some equivalent of discovering irrational numbers makes him choose his fantasy of order over observations. As Hossenfelder has written, searching for beauty is intrinsically problematic and limiting, for good science.