Theoretical objects don't exist independent of the mind, they are a subjective construct. Real objects outside the mind are very different indeed. Do you not see that these are two entirely different worlds, the subjective chitta Chatta of the mind and the world of physical objects?
Unfortunately we cannot consider, know, or understand physical objects any other way than through the subjective constructs of the mind. Because this is where our consciousness resides. So we have to represent them symbolically.
The problem is when the subjective construct is confused with the physical object it represents. This is not a problem when considering physical objects which we can interact with via our bodies, as we are hard wired to interact with them and use subjective constructs of them simultaneously. But when we try to consider physical objects which we cannot interact with externally(of the mind), then it is easy to fall into the trap of regarding them as subjective constructs alone, with no independent existence outside the mind. This is not the case, unknown physical objects do exist out there in numerous forms.
I see this all over this forum and repeatedly try to point it out with little success.
However in a philosophical discussion of ontologies it is important to be aware of the distinction.
Now I can see some relevance of falsifiability in scientific experiments, where it is easy to interact with the physical world and perform experiments. Also in the mental subjective world, it can have some relevance. But in the consideration of unknown physical(or otherwise) circumstances in existence it has little value.
Existence itself, whatever that is.
