I am not discussing the FT case. But as regards Wigner's article, the core thing he points out is that while we are used to the effectiveness of maths, centuries after Newton, there in fact is not any prior grounds to expect this effectiveness.

And no, this is unrelated to whether math is invented or discovered. If anything this is related to the extreme success of reductionism in physics.

As a general point of reflection: If an influential article by a smart person seems silly to you, it's good practice to entertain the question if you missed something, and to ask what others are seeing in it that you're missing.