Of course they had a lot of different ideas, so what? Physicists have a lot of different ideas about reality as well, but ultimately they consider as true ideas only those that can be expressed through math equations, and here, both a Chinese and Greek scientist would use the same syntax and so share absolutely the same vision - note, I mean vision.As I mentioned above, the Ancient Greeks had many different ideas about reality in this sense. The same observation can be made about philosophies recorded in Chinese, a language quite different from Greek. And if talking about the Far East, Chinese and Japanese are as different from each other as each is from English.
There are popular videos explaining things like relativity, space-time and causality and how time slows down near an object - and, while they tend to use the ordinary language, they anyway involve graphics which, in its dynamics, actually just follow the essence of the related equations - and so are using the same syntax but another "lexical elements" - instead of capital letters, they use images, and instead of operators, they use motion of these images, but, anyway they need the same operands and operators that are part of the equation.
But somehow you can't do translation between two human languages using the same operands and operators. People can mean the same thing, but describe it in different way, which sometimes doesn't allow any element-wise translation: you bring it to the the analogy on the sentence level only, but every inside component of the structure is ignored - so maybe they do not mean the same thing?
The fact that English does not require you to distinguish between male and female neighbours does not mean that a native speaker cannot conceive of a neighbour as being male or female.
Well, I didn't mean they cannot, of course. But, they can leave it indefinite for the hearer/reader in communication - which makes me personally feel uncomfortable as I'm lacking an initial imagery to which my mind is accustomed, which like suggests that for an English speaker, that imagery is not that necessary.
I have worked a lot as a cabinet-maker, and when I used to visit some new friend of mine at their home, my attention immediately focused on the furniture, so I could tell many things about how it is made and so on. With that, I could to lose sight of the whole room, which could have something like interesting coloring of walls, or pictures on them, or curtains, or something else. Now suppose, that shortly after my entering the room I was invited to the table: there is no chance for me to notice all these things, as my mind is already occupied with the furniture details, and what comes the next is eating, drinking, talking, and after some time I am drunk and saying them goodbye.
They do, I believe. This doesn't mean that in the real world there are things that people speaking in some specific language are unable to see, or, they are the only ones who are able to. Rather they focus on one aspects of that thing and put other in the shade.One can make the same points about any aspect of grammar. English lacks classifiers, ergative alignment, evidential markers, inalienable possession marking and conjugating adjectives, amongst other features. Does anyone natively speaking a language with any of those features perceive the world differently from a native English speaker?