Interesting set of arguments. Although some points are very unclear to me and were not elaborated, I do get the general idea of what you're doing, and its at least someone clear what you're aiming at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you to be elaborating a causality or dependence between abstract form, idea, reflection, which includes number etc., and concrete determinate structure, especially that of the physical world. Your last set makes something like this clear in that "rational numbers have physical qualities", "energy is physical", "the reflectivity of the abstract and physical" is unified in some way which remains to be further explained. Very good. However, I might ask what this all aims at. What is the culminating ontology here? Perhaps you are undertaking a synthesis of the age old opposition which has seemed unresolvable for so long between the varieties of idealism and materialism, . . .between monisms and dualism, as between the various everything that descended from the positivism of the Vienna Circle to attack all metaphysics, and everything that rose from the attempts to resolve the problems of Kant in the philosophical contortions Hegel, Heidegger, etc. . .in sum, some way to affirm both Platonism and naturalistic and naive realism at the same time in a kind of synthesis.
One other thing that occurs to my mind, beyond the fact that I desire to see these arguments elaborated and applied, is the question of the ontological status of both matter and energy. This might be the same as asking what is the universe at bottom. But then it seems indecent in a way to ask such
-- Updated April 20th, 2017, 6:47 pm to add the following --
Another question that comes to mind was one that arose once when I was making an argument for idealism. I was claiming that the laws of the universe are more "real" than their phenomena, . . .this was going back to the old argument seen in the Vedic philosophy and also in Spinoza's work that the cause contains more reality than the effect. The phenomena are mere appearance, changing, etc. whereas the cause being the rational structure underlying all phenomena is what is truly real. How might your argument relate to this old proposition?