We naturally arrived at this model because multiple things could exist at the same time (e.g. there are 2 sheep), but at the time the universe didn't "care" that there were 2 sheep. In the same way statistics came about - and so happened to be a good way to describe quantum mechanics.
Ultimately our failure to unite relatively ("algebra") and quantum mechanics ("statistics") demonstrates that the universe is not mathematical (as we have defined it): the universe likely does have a language but it is not a form of mathematics that we understand yet.
In addition the voice-over used English to describe the universe, "a sheep", "electrons", etc. English (or any spoken language) can describe the universe in ways that mathematics cannot. We can verbally conceptualize the universe with eachother but these concepts are hard (or impossible) to describe in mathematics. English is as-good a descriptor of the universe as mathematics is. It cannot quantify or predict accurate outcomes - as that is the realm of math, however math cannot poetically depict a beautiful waterfall (which is as much a part of the universe as the Higgs Field is). Newton's Theory of Gravity came from "the apple falls from the tree" after all.
It doesn't mean that the universe is intrinsically mathematical - it just means that one of our models happens to fit the universe's two differing behaviours better than our other models; it does not mean we have the perfect model (or language).