Kevin Simler

The interesting questions are: why is it; and, if a high % of math needed by physicists was already developed by mathematicians much earlier, why is that? Are any cases really 'preternatural', or might there be reasonably simple explanations?

Sadly, in my many years of hearing the OP's claim, I find that a low % of people who repeat that claim show any interest in exploring the obvious questions.

Can’t we just marvel at a curious fact?! But also, yeah, what kind of things do you have in mind for a simplifying explanation? Even something handwavy?

I feel we should marvel at stuff only if we've made an honest attempt to explain it and failed. Otherwise I'd marvel at the fact that the bus comes at the same time every morning. There are several ways we could start trying to explain why old math turns out useful in physics.

(1) Maybe it's not that useful. If only 0.1% of all math turns out useful in this way, maybe there's not much to explain. Has anyone tried to quantify this? I've never seen it.

(2) Physicists&mathematcns are humans who perceive&process wrld in similar ways. Contra Wigner, lots of math develops from various human intuitions (geometric, combinatorial, logical, economic, informational, etc) --- it's not just looking for defs that lead to cleverest theorems

E.g. physicists&mathematicians (P&M) experience physical space in v similar ways. Ms don't study only physical space, so are motivated to consider small variations on R³ that they're still able to grasp with human spatial intuitions.

Later, Ps find that R³ poor model of physical space, need a variant that is still close to R³ to be compatible with earlier theories and human intuitions. Maybe not so surprising that spaces Ms found fit the bill.