Yet still professional mathematicians have an underlying notion of truth outside of any axiom systems. I forgot who said it but if we were to find a contradiction using Peano’s axioms, we would say that the axioms were wrong, rather than arithmetic itself.
Even your comment references “perfect rules which totally correspond to reality” which seems to be another way to say “absolute truth”.
>Yet still professional mathematicians have an underlying notion of truth outside of any axiom systems.
I am certain about that, but it does not make my statement less true. I actually think that very few people believe in ZFC as either a formalist absolute or as an arbitrary set of rules. I think the most common view is that it enables other theories, that those mathematicians actually care about. The moment those theories rely directly on axioms things get difficult. I think the following quote describes quite well the state of ZFC:
"The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?"
Even your comment references “perfect rules which totally correspond to reality” which seems to be another way to say “absolute truth”.