Math/logic is part of nature

Those who say that math is just a tool for the human mind to interpret nature, and not a part of nature itself, neglect that the human mind is itself a part of nature, and therefore so is its capacity for math. If someone were prone to thinking 1+1=3, he would be maladapted for certain basic tasks, and his kind would die off.

That is not to say that all people must reason using the same logic. This is because there is a diversity of ways that different minds can reason to a good conclusion. But this diversity is limited. For example, if one were prone to reasoning to a good conclusion using a very complicated system of logic, this would exhaust him, and he would be worse off than someone who reasoned his way to a good conclusion in a simple way. So there is a universal bias in favor of simple logical systems, as opposed to unnecessarily complex ones.

You might say simplicity is relative, and that any system that is complicated from the perspective of one mind is simple for a some other hypothetical mind, because you can just define the complicated things to be the atomics. But the reality is that there is a universal sense of simplicity, that stems from the conservation of energy. If something is too complex, in the common sense of the word, it will consume too much energy and perish. This includes logical systems.

Additionally, the diversity of minds themselves will be limited, because there are only so many ways that matter can interact to create intelligence. And the similarities they share will result in similar ways of thinking.

Because of these things, and others, nature will limit the diversity of logical systems that can be useful. This means you will always find similarities and common patterns to all good logical systems, whether they are systems used by humans, or some alien civilization. These patterns and similarities are universal truths. So the reality of things like math is that some of it will be peculiar to the human mind, but aspects will also be universal. God has created a diversity of ways to reason, but he has also placed bounds on this diversity.

There is no universal sense of simplicity.  See here for what simplicity means.  Even in the realm of math, a breakthrough can make what was complex into something simple.  For example regular waves were very hard to express using polynomials and old tools but became simple with fourier analysis.

The possible diversity of minds is almost unlimited.  Ours are created out the materials that happen to be present here in Earth.  Who knows what kind of minds would exist built with totally different materials in a very different environment.

Ok then just substitute "simplicity" with "efficiency". Some ways of reasoning will just be more efficient than others, which means you will see patterns in how different things reason.

Some of it has to do with the thing doing the reasoning but some of it will just be universal. Some numerical concept for example will be needed by any being that engages in trade, because if you do not have an understanding of the quantities you are trading you will get cheated.

Their numerical system may look different than ours, but you will see common patterns among the different numerical systems, and can convert one to another in varying degrees, and one civilization can learn from another this way, if their system can be communicated somehow. Some of it will be different, because of the differences of the minds, but some of it will be the same because of the common nature their minds were formed to understand and which formed their minds.

There isn't much difference between simplicity and efficiency.  My argument applies as well to efficiency.

The reason we have numbers is because we live in a domain of objects, and it is natural to count objects.  What if intelligent life developed in a domain of gases?  They probably wouldn't count, they would think in some different way.

Efficiency just means to consume less energy. It is something that is absolute.