The problem with this line of thought is that it completely upends classical cause and effect. Things have effects in proportion to their size. The sun has a way bigger effect on us than Jupiter does.
But when you get to the scale of ideas, the logic upends. The pen should not be mightier than the sword, but is because ideas have outsized effects on the world compared to their physical size as merely electrons moving in brains.
But logic can be maintained by extending existence out to the non-physical. Ideas can be bigger than other ideas, and you can logically evaluate them. You just have to figure out the rules first.
The pen is mightier than the sword only because the pen can create ideas that inspire and guide a lot of swords.
Ideas without physical actions don't cause any effect. Ideas only outweigh actions to the extent that they result in larger actions.
If you start with any historically impactful idea and carefully trace its impact, you will see quite a lot of mass and energy moving around along the way.
And what is a sword without an idea? It lies there, inert, no threat to anyone. So when people talk about "the pen vs. the sword," what they're really talking about is a competition of ideas. Behind every sword there is thought--and pens can help change thought.
But none of this means that thought and ideas are non-physical. The relative impact of competing ideas might be non-linear and unpredictable, but physical systems can be non-linear and unpredictable.
But when you get to the scale of ideas, the logic upends. The pen should not be mightier than the sword, but is because ideas have outsized effects on the world compared to their physical size as merely electrons moving in brains.
But logic can be maintained by extending existence out to the non-physical. Ideas can be bigger than other ideas, and you can logically evaluate them. You just have to figure out the rules first.