I assume you meant that as an obvious absurdity, but if you were going for that you probably should have avoided the concept of "language", which can be Turing Complete. Still, the main point is, whatever it is, it is, and it isn't asking us for permission to be what it is.
Proving the universe isn't made out of "mathematical objects" in particular is equivalent to the difficulty of proving it's not a "simulation". This is one of the red lines that tells you you've gone too far; you can't prove that. You can't even non-circularly define such a thing in this context anyhow, let alone prove anything.
If not, then whose to say whether the mathematical object is 'real' or just a perfect description? Is the difference meaningful?