I’m afraid I think all the discussion about triangles, circles, and what 1+1 equals are largely irrelevant. Their meaning was defined by humans, based on our observations, and, if there was anyone in any other universe capable of observing a set of points equidistant from a centre, or envisaging lines joining three points, then they too could have come up with similar mathematical axioms.
However, the value of the gravitational constant (or any of the other fundamental constants) does not depend on observation. Other universes, if there are any, could have different values. Nor are many of the relationships that we observe between these constants necessary. Why the “square of the distance” that so many of our relationships depend on, why not the “square of the distance +1”? Obviously “our” universe has to have these values or we wouldn’t exist, but I cannot think of a reason why “our” universe had to exist instead of any others, or none at all. Unless, of course, we were were purposed.
Atheistic cosmologists, faced with this dilemma, (correct me if I’m wrong) suggest either that our universe is entirely fortuitous, or that in fact every possible universe in some sense does exist. One extension of that idea is that many, or all, of the other universes are inherently unstable, and would have collapsed into nothing again, so that in fact our own universe actually is the only possible one.
For those who do not believe in the uncaused, intelligent cause, consider the observable, scientifically measurable and natural phenomenon of entropy. Intelligence does not proceed from non-intelligence.
Some of us have spent our working lives considering the observable, scientifically measurable and natural phenomenon of entropy. It does not follow that intelligence does not proceed from non-intelligence.