Dear Alma,
As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your intriguing Essay. You made an excellent and original work. Here are some comments/questions:
1) I see your pretty statement that "the belief that math has an independent existence beyond our daily lives is based on the observation that even a child can intuitively understand math" confirmed every day by my son David, 4 years old, who plays with numbers...
2) Your aphorisms "Physics is the only science that can work with spherical cows in a void", "As opposed to an engine, one can't fix math", "Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight.", "We can't expect math to work on its own", "Physics is simple", "There is still time for math", "You know you're missing something when there's just too much you can't explain" and "Just wait to see our children" are fantastic! For the last one, see my point 1).
3) Your stress we don't have a quantitative match between theories in pure math and the description of nature. I think we will never have it.
4) Do you think physics is not scale invariant?
5) I agree with you that the Langlands program sounds like good news for physics, but it must be handled very carefully. I know two possibilities to translate an intractable problem into another framework which sometimes generate confusion: the Maldacena conjecture, which, in my opinion, does nor resolve the black hole information paradox as it is often claimed, and the "Einstein frame versus Jordan frame" controversy in astrophysics observations.
Finally, I found the reading of your beautiful Essay very interesting and enjoyable. Thus, I am giving you a deserved highest rate.
I wish you best luck in the contest.
Cheers, Ch.