Math is a perfect world, the universe is not. It's absolutely spontaneous, random, and diverse.
I again think that you're focusing on simplifications and learning devices made to ease human understanding within the field of mathematics.
To say that the universe is spontaneous and random is a rather strident assertion, correct me if I'm wrong. By my understanding, QM and the Bell's Inequalities tests et cetera simply state that we're unable to predict certain phenomena and thereby do not attempt to posit a deterministic mechanism behind them - which is not the same thing as positively asserting that the universe is random or that the particular outcomes of quantum-scale interactions are uncaused.
If the physical universe is filled with uncaused events as you appear to be positing then that very discontinuity or disjointedness, that lack of congruence, is dissimilar to the structure within mathematics that I've been talking about, I agree (but again, only under the assumption that your claim is true.) But if you're simply trying to imply that the physical universe is more complicated than what mathematics could possibly contain I think that's an untenable assertion; the closer we analyze things the more it appears there's an infinity of fractal complexity in every direction and on every scale, as it were.
And I'll reiterate again, since both your own arguments and the people you're quoting are repeatedly mentioning cases where physicists crudely, ineptly, or unsuccessfully try to use mathematics as a tool - that reflects poorly on physicists and physics, not on the subject of study of mathematics. As I said before mathematics isn't there because humans want to do calculations or because physicists want to make models of the physical universe. A wrench is a poor tool for banging nails into wooden planks but that doesn't really say anything about the wrench. (But that's just an analogy, I don't think that the subject of study of mathematics is a tool.)