But seriously, do you think that laws exist like as mathematical forms that particles and/or waves obey. Otherwise there does not seem to be any difference between materialism and physicalism.

I personally think that 'existence' is composed of 'rooms'. Each 'room' is governed by its own brand of logic, and the logic of each 'room' breeds a whole language of true statements. However, statements having no reference to 'something' are without content (i.e., no meaning), so universes exist as a result - they provide meaning to truth, if you will. We are one of those universes in one of those 'rooms'. There is some kind of meta-logic that applies for all of reality. So, for example, let's say that category theory is the metalogic, then a room is a category having a specific kind of logic, and each category has a collection of objects (universes) which makes that category meaningful to the whole. Btw, I'm not saying category theory is *the* theory of reality, but it comes close, I think.

What is it called when all that exists is mathemnatical forms and everything else is illusion.?

It's sort of a mix between Absolute Idealism (only God's mind exists) mixed with Platonism. Absolute Platonism?? (or just Platonism, possibly...).

Parts of that thing can be distinguished. Like parts of it could be incoherent and other parts coherent, or frictional and frictionless, or visible and invisible. But whatever it is, it is just different aspects of nature, including the supernatural. Does that make me a naturalist?

A naturalist is someone who thinks that the natural world is all that exists. It gets a little confusing to use these terms when combining with platonist and idealist ideas since the terms naturalist, materialist, physicalist, etc. were to distinguish themselves from people who were platonist, idealist, supernaturalist, etc. They seem to start to run into each other if you say that supernatural and/or platonism is just natural laws that we don't yet understand, etc. A naturalist/physicalist might be willing to accept such a position if it were proved that such invisible things really existed and they conformed to natural/physical laws, but I think they would first resist saying that many of those things didn't exist in the first place.