Phones have destroyed the P&S market, but without ignoring physics that’s as far as they can go. A FF and above camera will always be better, as well as having all the other advantages listed (lenses, batteries, etc.).

Smaller formats will struggle despite having the physics advantage simply due to cost; smaller sensor cameras are generally not as expensive and so don’t take full advantage of their sensor area. The lens ecosystems are also not as good as the larger, more professional mounts.

The original poster has written - at length - about a very small attribute, detail, which is not entirely the responsibility of the sensor but they equate this to image quality. Detail isn't some universal hallmark of image quality and nor is dynamic range, and I don't think I want to be dragged into arguing anything at the level of the Reddit poster because it's all wrong, it's all apples and oranges and I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that leads them to write that post.

Cameras are an external translator of all the electromagnetic waves going on around us, a little like human senses, producing snapshots of what we think is reality. Different people's senses translate things slightly differently, because they are differently sensitive to emotion, or sound, or smell, and camera hardware varies along similar lines, but perhaps to colour and light.

These differences are cast aside in the post/rant, not explored, a very one-dimensional train of thought with accompanying potshots at supposed camera snobs and various insults at other commenters.

On the point about who cares what camera you're using anyway, it's true to some extent, but sometimes I may be interested in some technical detail that relates to an aspect of a photograph. I keep a lens around because it renders hair in a magical way that no other lens I use does. Gear sometimes has a visual attribute that is quite interesting.

Subjective preferences for the ‘look’ of a particular camera or lens obviously exist. However, as they are subjective, there is not much to be said about them when comparing equipment or advising someone on which equipment to use. Anyone can just look at some sample shots and decide for themselves.

In this post you play down the importance of detail (“a very small attribute, detail”), whereas in your original post you describe being “simply gobsmacked at not just the content but also the quality of resolution…” of the photos you saw.

You seem very sure that there must be something inferior about phone cameras, but you're frankly all over the place when it comes to saying what this thing actually is.