That's what I would expect most mathematical-existence types to think. It's true, but it's also the wrong thought.

Perhaps, but irrelevant, because I'm not what you would call a mathematical-existence type.

ETA: The point is that you can't be confident about what thought stands behind the sentence "Pearl's causal networks can be encoded in ZFC" until you have some familiarity with how the speaker thinks. On what basis do you claim that familiarity?