The second point I would make is a directly analytic one, and not unrelated to my first point. It is to do with individuation, with what the world is made of, which things our logic is to be about.
And again, we choose. What counts as a simple, an atom, an individual changes with our purpose.
The arguments here should I hope be familiar. Quine’s “gavagai” argument and Wittgenstein on simples, at around PI §48., and the “myth of the given” form Wilfrid Sellars.
What counts as an individual is not given, but a choice.
Of course, not just any choice will do. Our choices are constrained. Perhaps the best way to understand “the world” is as that which imposes that constraint.
Nevertheless, our ontology is not entirely fixed; it is underdetermined by the world.