P1: Mathematics is the substrate upon which all natural phenomena occur and necessarily governs phenomena in the physical world.
P2: One can experience something that is not mathematically commensurate.
C: Therefore, such an experience can be real.
Rationale: I know that according to the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis, one can only think in the words they know, but perhaps the hypothesis is likened to phenomenology that is experienced to the resolution of the mathematics one understands. And in that case, the natural world will reveal more of itself when one understands more mathematics the same way, according to the Hypothesis, one can formulate mathematically more specific ideas and phrases when they have a greater vocabulary in multiple languages.
Does the following argument about the ontological nature related to math exhibit specific fallacies? Which philosophers and philosophical disciplines are related to evaluating such an argument?
 thanks for all the help on formulating my question!