Yes. You've said: ... the word "nature" in this context is an actual abstraction of the mind and therefore is something that is real as such, and yet immaterial and non-physical .... there is a distinction to be recognized between a "thing" and its "nature."
I understand what you're saying. I agree that a thing itself is different from our perception of the thing; and I further agree that a thing's inherent attributes are different from our abstract understanding thereof. That doesn't indicate, to me at least, that there's anything more to a thing than ... well, than the thing itself.
Our observations and abstractions are within us; they add nothing to the thing itself, and they don't even suggest to me that a thing has some kind of dual reality, merely because we perceive it and think about it. I'm not persuaded, or even inclined, to think that there's anything more to it, but I always remain open to evidence.
I'm not suggesting that there is a "dual reality," Patrick. Bear in mind that it is our observations and abstractions (the latter would include, for instance, the laws of physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.), which are "within us," that enable us to do science in the first place. If they are not "real" (notwithstanding that they are intangible, non-physical, immaterial), then neither is science itself.
Capice amice?