Well, this is not "my" philosophy. It has, as a matter of fact, nothing to do with philosophy. It is instead the mere definition of physics as the science that studies the properties of matter (and the laws governing all associated phenomena). Mathematics are useful. That's clear. But they are not the purpose, and I don't see how this implies that the universe can be described independently of mathematics. I have never made this implication and I disagree with it.

In addition, quantum theories are predictive (which is why they are called "theories") and these predictions can be compared with data. Moreover, many quantum phenomena have been observed and some are even at the source of technological applications.

To discuss the last point of your reply, it is clear that they are issues with the Standard Model. No one will say the contrary. However, the Standard Model works super well for many things as a quantum field theory. Any theory that may supersede it in years from now (and I hope I will live enough to see this happening, which is not guaranteed), will just be as the Standard Model in the appropriate limit (exactly as for relativity and classical mechanics). Therefore, I maintain my statement. We have here a predictive quantum field theory, whose predictions are in excellent agreement with data. In other words, we have an example of a quantum field theory that works (despite of being imperfect).