I don’t think that’s it at all. I’ve tried responding to your Descartes comments, but you keep saying what you said the first time you brought it up. No doubt, the traditional narrative is about how the universe conspired to create us and put us at the apex. But that has been challenged for a thousand years now. Math is very much part of that challenge, as was the develop of languages that can be taught to masses of people, slowly shifting the center of power from hierarchies that assume divine guidance, to the ability to convince majorities based on evidence on logic.
I don’t see statements about how we create meaning for ourselves to have anything to do with us being the center of the story. It’s the opposite, it’s saying that we, individually, are insignificant to the forces of billions of years. Those lead to survival strategies and give us procreation skills and not much else, and those skills are horribly flawed. I’m not sure how other animals perceive that stuff, but since we can learn about ourselves by observing nature, that proves we are not the center.
A principle of science is that the laws of nature are consistent throughout time and space. Math is the codification of that. How is that “close to the argument the universe is pointless without us”?