I agree with your points on Kalam but have to nitpick on everything else.<p>On the &quot;describing reality&quot; to &quot;creating reality&quot;. Very few people argue for ex-nihilo creation but far more people tend to project that on the opposing side (ie where did god come from? what was before the big bang?). I don&#x27;t think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles reality behaves mathematically and thus can transform into new situations with new mechanics (or realities).<p>Second nitpick: different mathematics. You don&#x27;t loose the foundations of reason, rather you are stating that with different assumptions a system behaves differently. You are still computing the logical outcome with the premises given. If you have a universe where true and false mean the same then you have a very small universe that doesn&#x27;t support any differentiation. Take comfort in knowing this helps solve Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. We can construct an infinite number of consistent mathematical realities but only by comparing their predictions to our reality can we resolve which reality is our own.