First, let me define 'Person' as anything complex enough to perceive truths about reality in the level that we do.
Now, i'm gonna provide two mutually exclusive options about the nature of persons
1 - The basic concepts of math ( space and number ) and logic have to be common to any person.
Any person ( aliens in sittuations as distant as possible from ours, perhaps of different universes or perhaps even more distant than that ) would end up obtaining the things that are ultimately true for us, namely the truths of classical logic and math ( "2+2=4" considering the usual meaning of '2','+','=','4' , and the fact that there are only five platonic solids ) even if in completely different languages and formalizations. Numbers can be expressed in terms of geometry, or in terms of induction and sets, but in each case the truths of arithmetic are preserved, what is changed is the formalization and the proofs.
2 - There might be completely different kind of persons and for some of them, their ultimate truths would be really different than ours, perhaps even inconsistent. For some, "2+2=4", considering the usual meaning of '2','+','=','4' , would'nt even make any sense at all. Perhaps for them, the idea of a platonic solids would not make any sense.
I know we couldn't know for sure whether 1 or 2 is correct because we are already trapped in the sittuation described by 1.
Nevertheless, I'm interested if there is any nice completely objective argument ( not bringing morality or emotion into picture ), that makes one of them more plausible.
Perhaps, surprisingly, there is an argument that makes 2 really seem more plausible than 1, even if we are trapped by 1.
Or perhaps there isn't any argument and we can't even know which is more plausible and hence taking a position regarding 2 or 1 is futile.
Any good arguments ?
Thanks in advance.