Possible argument against the existence of mathematical objects? (Platonism)

So lets ad some value to the pop science movie shall we...
The reason why PI need not be exclusively found in a circle is because the circle is not fundamental. You can describe a circle as a loop of information always with the same pattern of deviation in 1D string.
Equally you can do it with any other geometrical shape. A triangle for instance connects 3 patterns of information between themselves through a function. A pattern in function of B, B in function of C, and C back in function of A. That simple !

Last but not least symbols which is the only thing we "invented" in maths describe maths behaviour they are not the maths itself.
Now Razzy boy...tail your doggy dog brainless cerebellum out of my sight, I had it with you !

Now in regard to another persistent confusion:

If people come at me and ask me, hey Fil, but do circles squares and triangles are real ? My answer surely will be, of course they are ! Phenomena are real phenomena ! Understanding and describing phenomena in their correct order is not BEING phenomena. The essence of Phenomena is not diminished by Occam Razoring to the best, most simple, possible explanation on how they work and where they fit.

I am confused...

"1.1 mathematical objects, if they exist, are non-physical"
"Therefore, mathematical object are not non-physical"

Physicality is not equivalent to non-existence.
So then it is possible to not be physical, and be affected by the physical, for example love.
It is my "abstract" mind that creates an abstract number. So then assuming consciousness (not necessary mine) can exist with out the physical then so to can numbers.