Anyone who will not knuckle-under to Einfühlung's (Jerry's) diktat, below, that a unicorn and Einstein's equation, e=mc² do NOT differ in meaningfulness deserves to be convicted for violating this cult's taboo against minimal human rationality. Science, mathematics and reason have been thrown to the dogs in this counter-real kennel-show.
Jerry's pot of hokum above commits multiple category errors. A unicorn is an imaginary beast. "e" and "m" are variables in physics equations. "c" is a fundamental, physical constant. 3 is a number. For about 100 years, "e" and "m" have been shown via e=mc² in experiments to represent measurable, phenomenal quantities of energy and mass. By measuring the velocity of electromagnetic (light) waves, "c" has been shown constant for 100s of years.
The line, "show me "e=mc^2" that we didn't make.", is dill-hole prattle, worthy of a Beavis or a Butthead. It's Jerry's sub-moronic nisus to make physics and applied mathematics imaginary. Applied mathematics is not a mind-dependent illusion. The equations of physics rigorously depict the mind-independent conditions, pervading the universe or they would be useless (and the theories from which they are drawn overthrown long ago). The variables and constants in e=mc² go proxy for real, phenomenal conditions in the universe - unlike a person's belief in an unicorn.
The equation e=mc² does not have to be emblazoned in the sky for it to be meaningful - anymore than one has to (just as absurdly) smell the quarter notes in Bach's printed musical scores for his music to be a feature of reality, packed with meaning.
"show me "e=mc^2" that we didn't make." On a clear night, look up into the sky. The stars are visible - because they generate radiant energy through fusion reactions. Human beings did not make the stars, and the matter converted into energy by stars is precisely captured by the equation, e=mc². If e=mc² is not meaningful and mind-independent, then no star ever burned! There's a difference between e=mc² and a god-damned unicorn...