You touch on a very central point there: meaning is what humans make of it.

Explaining nature causally using mathematical models isn't "the primary goal" of humanity. STEM people tend to have a weird misconception there, probably stemming from their misconceptualization of the humanities.

This in turns leads to this odd idea of "AI will think for us". That's pure (and pretty obvious) insanity. Logically minded people encountering it should ask, where the error in their reasoning is.

> Abstract math can diverge from that and can become an exercise in playing with symbols for their own sake.

I have two issues with the implication of this statement:

1. Meaning is inherently subjective. Reality is just a canvas on which sentient beings create their own meaning.

2. There are many, many examples of where “playing with symbols for their own sake” have yielded deep insights. There’s actually some implicit structure (eg the structure of logic) that is intrinsic to the universe we live in.

> This I don't know about. I think math acquires meaning when it contacts reality: like an iota is pointless until there's some circuit that it explains. Abstract math can diverge from that and can become an exercise in playing with symbols for their own sake.

After talking to a mathematician friend I can assure you that contact with reality is not the main goal of abstract math. It is mental constructions that have logical consistency and probably this is not the perfect definition either. It is somewhat of an art which is rendered in the logical mind. However physicists (me) and engineers will align with you.