Mathematical proof is an indication about something; it is not the same as providing actual evidence for something.

Math is an abstraction of reality and works fine. It is however limited in two ways.

1/

1 + 1 = 2 is correct but meaningless.

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, now that is something meaningful. It is correct, even when we have 1 apple in China and 1 apple in Washington D.C. (i.e. not really related).

2/

The other limitation for math is that we can describe the entire universe with it, using the decimal system.

But we can write everything in the binary system as well.

In the decimal system 1 is a rather important number and exists in a very important hierarchical spot.

In the binary system, 1 is a very important number because it is the only active number next to 0. But it does not exist in a specific hierarchical spot.

Meaning: math as we know it is one specific manner of looking at everything numerically, but not the only way.

So, Tony, there are two ways to show that the proof is not the ultimate truth.

If it interests you, I am with Gödel who showed that when we start out with truths, then we cannot end up with an overall truth based on that discovered truth. His Incompleteness Theorems tell us that whatever we want to conclude at the highest big-picture level, we end up not being able to formulate that specific truth without describing its role in that larger picture.

An easy example is that we can declare a common truth among all men. But what is true for guys is not true for all people. So, a specific truth is discovered, but that specific truth cannot be brought to the level of it being the truth for all. That's Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in an ordinary example.

--

You seem very vested, which is never the best way to find proof or evidence. If someone's agenda speaks louder than the truth, then we have (which word we know from religion) is a zealot.

I know you a little, so I know you are a good person, not too fanatic. I hope you see the point I am trying to make.