Philosophy

Or do you distinguish the different fields?

Have you read any classical western philosophy? Esp. the empiricists, the nominalists?
The nominalists, in particular, would object to your needless multiplication of entities, where you posit the existence of a distinct image with each distinct term as somehow required for its understanding. As if a child, exclaiming "horse!" upon seeing a horse in a field should also require an image of a horse to understand what she said. Occam's razor was first formulated to cut through exactly that kind of confusion. All that we require to posit is an act of understanding. In the same way we aren't required to vocalize the words to understand a printed page (consider the deaf).

Recall the topic:
Q. Do you equate "objectively real" with "physically real"?
A. Sure. Matter without interpretation, which is tough, since we need interpretation to talk about it.

That is your claim. To tell the truth, it reminds me a bit of some DU contributors who claim to be from a "reality based community", and who claim that their political positions (and those who agree with them) are "realist" as opposed to whatever dismissive term they categorize the opinions of those whose opinions differ.

But back to your claim. The topic of my question wasn't "matter", you introduced that highly abstract term as the sole focus of your answer and in doing dismissed all other content, in effect denying the existence of "objectivity" except as falls in line with your theories or whatever about what "matter" is. Is Euclidean geometry not objectively real? Is Riemannian geometry not objectively real? If one asks a physicist or mathematician, I daresay most would say that objective truths about these systems of mathematics are much more certain than any statement that a physicist might make about "atoms", or "matter". After all, what we know about the physical world is acquired through our sense perception. Again, read the empiricists if you haven't already. Read what Hume has to say about such a basic "law" as of cause and effect. These topics have been debated by the best.

Thanks for discussing this. I'm totally rusty, my mind is half-asleep, so I hope not to have been too much of a bother.