[defrost]

> Euclidean geometry does not describe the universe, even if it's useful.

A statement that doesn't disprove the thesis in the slightest.

eg: There's non-Euclidean geometry which some say is handy in a post Newton Einstein universe.

If that fails, I feel there'll be something else again that conforms better to the universe as we understand it to be.

> the fact that math is not how the universe works was proven with math

Another statement that fails to prove the thesis; the universe itself is sufficiently complex that there can indeed be things out there that we will never 'prove' to our satisfaction.

You need to do some lifting here (perhaps a little more than 'some') to prove that Godel|Church|Turing results demonstrate beyond doubt that maths cannot underpin the workings of a universe.

Your comment reminds me a little of Gödel's ontological "proof" .. full of sound and fury but not really landing.