>>14016645>>14016660>>14016670>>14016644Descriptions are not explanations. You can describe in all 300+ reply threads like this and it will never actually elaborate on what you mean.
The explanation of how what you describe as "material" "exists" or is phenomenal enough to warrant investigation (even if it's an illusion) is...what? That's all that matters. You can't just define it with itself, nor can you disprove it with itself.
Lets compare all the "potentially real/fake" things we see for a moment, just for the sake of trying to have an argument over it. "Matter", "Light", "Shadows". The things you can visible observe for the sake of trying to argue over things you can at least visible show.
Like matter, you can measure shadows.
Like matter, you can take the temperature of shadows.
Like matter, shadows change their shape and their form
Like matter, you can see with your eyes the phenomena you call "shadow"
One apparent difference is that it has no mass or volume. Two measures that conveniently help define "matter", so the differentiation is now known.
Real or not, the distinction is known for matter.
Light too, has no mass or volume. Another distinction from "matter".
Does that make light a shadow?
No, A shadow only appears when there is light to cast it. Real or not we experiment and can use the light..but you can't "use" a shadow on light.
>It only appears when light is present to "make" "it" observable and measurableYou measure the effects of light and call it "shadow".
Matter has "mass and volume". Okay, what gives mass these properties? Or does it always have them and did it always have them?
Matter is made of these smaller parts...each containing similar parts that are created using high energy light.
>It only appears when light is present to "make" "it" observable and measurable You measure the effects of light and call it "matter".
So real or not, matter is defined by what it isn't. An untenable position to hold.