Thread: Is this world material or immaterial (arguments)

This is a completely useless question. What does the answer even mean either way? If the universe is immaterial then immaterial is the new material. It's really as simple as that. What's something that would be true about an immaterial universe that's not true about a material universe? Your answer to this question will help pinpoint which of your underlaying and unfounded assumptions is leading you to believe that this is an interesting (or answerable) question.

And for what it's worth, our intention *is* particles in our brain doing "material" things. See. Because you asked this question, I now have to put "material" in quotes. Before you asked this question, material just meant "that which the universe is made of." Now you've gone and gotten me all confused.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If the universe is immaterial then immaterial is the new material.

I might quote you on that sometime. I've heard this topic discussed before, and have never seen that point made.

The universe is made of matter, this should be painfully obvious.

I agree that PS makes an excellent point.

What does material even mean? It does not mean solid; solid is an emergent property that our minds evolved to create. In reality there is no solid, there is only a system of coordinates (particles) that move according to certain laws (for example two electrons will accelerate away from each other). In both materialism and idealism this system still seems to exist, so what is the difference?

Actually, this is a question that has been (and is still being) studied by scientists, the world over. It is 'interesting' because, even if there truly is no practical application for the possible answer that the world is 'immaterial,' the purpose of science is not only about application, it is about discovery. It is about knowing more about the universe; not just knowing what we can get out of it. I'm actually surprised to see all of you shooting down the OP's very valid question, without taking that into consideration.

In any case, yes, OP. There is a strong case for the universe being 'immaterial,' (which is just a label - if you guys don't like the word - or are confused by it - find something else or ask the OP to clarify before shooting him down). OP, you might find work on Holomovement and David Bohm's Implicate/Explicate Order (1)(2) interesting. You also might want to pick up the (highly recommended) book; The Holographic Universe (which you can read the first bit of, Here, and can probably find many free eBook copies, online.)

It basically presents the argument that (as has been discussed by Einstein, his colleague David Bohm, and others) the universe may, in fact, be "immaterial." That is to say that particles/matter (in the solid sense) may not be the actual basis for this universe, and that the universe may exist either as a holographic type of 'projection,' by which our frame of reference leads us to believe that these sensory stimuli we experience makes the universe seem more 'substantial' than it truly is, or that it is simply a free-flowing system of waves, that leads us to do the same.

Personally, I don't know what the guys above are talking about (not to say that they don't have some actual reason for dogging your very valid question as they did), but if such a question is "interesting" enough for such prestigious minds to ponder over, I, personally, have no qualms about giving it some thought - and neither should anyone else.

Uh, I wasn't 'shooting it down', I was suggesting an answer. I've given this plenty of thought and if you ruminate over what I said a little more you will realise that your whole post is just a reiteration of mine but without the further analysis. To explicate:

As I explained in my post, any 'standard view' of the universe in reductionist, materialist terms (in this analogy it helps to think of Euclidean 3-space with point particles) means that we are basically observing a mathematical entity with various rules; that's all it is. Coordinates moving around along various pre-defined curves. We perceive solids (that is to say rigid objects that cannot intersect with other objects), but these are not truly what is 'real' in a fundamental sense.

This is exactly the same as what you said. The holographic principle says that there is some mathematical entity we are observing, but the things we perceive are not things-as-they-are-in-themselves (phenomena are not noumena, in the phraseology of Kant).

The only thing different is that the two mathematical entities are different. For example in my analogy it was a 3-dimensional space; in the holographic model it's 2; in string theory it's 11. So the holographic principle is in no way any more or less materialistic than any other physical theory. There is still something separate from the human mind 'out there' which we are subject to, and hence we are talking about materialism rather than idealism.

Xei, that was completely my fault, for not specifying. I wasn't really talking about you. Your post was miles away from PS's and Spart's. I was really addressing theirs.

Oh okay. Although I did think PS was making a valid point even if he didn't go into much detail; and analysing the assumptions of the question is a valid answer, because there may well be a false dichotomy here. Also I think you should reconsider that the holographic principle is an idealist theory.

Originally Posted by Xei

Although I did think PS was making a valid point even if he didn't go into much detail; and analysing the assumptions of the question is a valid answer, because there may well be a false dichotomy here.

Well I can understand that, but it's one thing to question whether the answer would change anything, or whether or not it's a non-issue, but if there is a fundamental difference between the 'material/substantial' universe school of thought and the 'immaterial/insubstantial' school of thought, I don't see why simply asking the question - or searching for the definitive answer - would be so (as it would seem by the replies) ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Xei

Also I think you should reconsider that the holographic principle is an idealist theory.

Could you elaborate on this? I mean in how it relates to the OP. I'm new to the ins-and-outs of many philosophical topics. I somewhat understand how the HP is an idealist theory (from what I can tell, it seems to be Monistic Idealism? Correct me if I'm wrong), but what is that concept, in relation to the OP's question?

Well since your post was about me I just want to clear up one point.

Originally Posted by O

It is 'interesting' because, even if there truly is no practical application for the possible answer that the world is 'immaterial,' the purpose of science is not only about application, it is about discovery. It is about knowing more about the universe; not just knowing what we can get out of it.

You need to be more careful with your words. That's a dangerous assumption to someone that knows me. I could tell my girlfriend that you thought that I was dismissing something as being useless because it has not practical value and she would *die laughing*. I swear to god.

No, the reason it's useless is not because it's not practical (indeed most practical questions are absolutely useless as well) but because, as I explained in my answer, the answer either way tells us absolutely nothing.

Since you think its a valid question, maybe you can answer. What would be true about an "immaterial" universe that's not true about a "material" universe and vice versa?

Also, those scientists were more asking "what's the universe made out of?" It's a totally different, and very useful, question. OP is just continuing with his misguided quest to deny physical reality.

Originally Posted by PS

You need to be more careful with your words. That's a dangerous assumption to someone that knows me. I could tell my girlfriend that you thought that I was dismissing something as being useless because it has not practical value and she would *die laughing*. I swear to god.

Well then I apologize for the misunderstanding. From the way it was worded, that's what I gathered. Withdrawn.

Originally Posted by PS

Since you think its a valid question, maybe you can answer. What would be true about an "immaterial" universe that's not true about a "material" universe and vice versa?

One would be a universe that is made up of absolute particles, with absolute, physical properties. The universe would be an objective, physical constant, to which its actual properties are just what they seem to be - specks of separate materials with unique properties.

The other would be a universe made up of an 'energy-cloud' (for lack of a better analogy), in which particles and matter don't actually exist as absolutes - as the physical 'things' that we identify them as - but as 'illusions' or 'projections' of absolute 'things' in space/time. It would be like web of neural activity creating the world as it does a dream - in that the objects you see in your dreams aren't physically 'there.' They only seem as if they are 'there' (to mean: physically substantial) because your frame of reference is turned inward, and you are observing this neural activity and the illusions it produces.

Two very different things.

Originally Posted by PS

Also, those scientists were more asking "what's the universe made out of?" It's a totally different, and very useful, question. OP is just continuing with his misguided quest to deny physical reality.

Ah, you know, I went back and re-read the OP (which was kind of hard to decipher, in the first place, I agree), and I see more of what you mean. Whereas I thought he was talking about the universe "outside of the physical" it seems now that he was talking more about the universe being made up in - and controlled by - our individual minds? If this is the case, then I can see more where you are coming from. Although, I would like to hear more from the OP about it, because it could just be a shaky inquiry leading toward the broader picture of the universe being an 'insubstantial' (albeit objective) construct, as I'd suggested.

... it seems now that he was talking more about the universe being made up in - and controlled by - our individual minds? If this is the case, then I can see more where you are coming from. Although, I would like to hear more from the OP about it, because it could just be a shaky inquiry leading toward the broader picture of the universe being an 'insubstantial' (albeit objective) construct, as I'd suggested.

Exactly, this is where I was trying to get at, that this whole world is basically a dream, in our minds, like proposed in the book which I have read by the way (thank you for the recommendation), The Holographic Universe.

Basically, how it is useful to know whether the universe is material or immaterial is that it will lead us to ponder the question of how an Immaterial (intention) can move the material, is it magic? Or is it in our minds? Both of these things answer it and to me these two things are huge to ponder over.

Since you think its a valid question, maybe you can answer. What would be true about an "immaterial" universe that's not true about a "material" universe and vice versa?

If in a material universe, then we would have to consider the possibility of magic in the case of nothing (immaterial) moving something (material). If it is immaterial, then we would consider the possibility that the material of the universe is the same material of the mind, thus leading us to believe that this whole thing is our mind.

Also, those scientists were more asking "what's the universe made out of?" It's a totally different, and very useful, question. OP is just continuing with his misguided quest to deny physical reality.

I have followed the Buddhist in my quest, I first emptied all my assumptions and all my stereotypes before dwelling on these questions. I understand the stereotype that there are some who deny the physical reality, but that is not me. I simply asked the question of how immaterial can move a material and from this you can ponder if physical reality is real or not.

Secondly, how is it useful to ask what the universe is made up of, at the core of material (whatever it may be), we are only giving it "name", thats it. You do not need to know what it is made up of to know its properties.

This is how I conclude it, it is very hard to distinguish if the material is truly physical or not, but what leads us closer to it is considering that it is very illogical for immaterial (basically nothing) to move something if it truly was physical, it makes perfect sense if the material is the same material created by our minds, which leads us to the idea of idealism. Basically, it tips the weight on immaterialism, I currently do not hold any views, so as to dissipate any stereotype getting in the way of this argument.

The view that I do hold is that the most logical, most sound world-view is the view that this whole thing is our mind, and here are my reasons for it. First thing, if you read the book, The Holographic Universe, there are some very interesting stories such as a lady in trance holding her hand over fire and not getting burnt, levitations, creating out of season fruits, psychics with abilities to study an object by concentration and as though they go back in time. With the "mind" theory, it solves the paradox of nothing moving an object. Reincarnation, trees turning on and off, material coming out of nothing.

I propose that in this theory that this whole thing is in our mind, you can not find one fault and you can solve any problem of the world. I have been trying for a long time, and I very much encourage everyone to think on this. I make it a challenge. If you guys have read my post, you should know that I am very strict when holding a view, if you read the thread,( http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/strict...ntence-107112/ ) you will see the view I hold, but this is the reason I am proposing this challenge, this view that this whole thing is a dream is just so perfect, I can not find any fault in it.

With this view, it also becomes a little more symbolic than we are used to, for example, as young, we might get it in our head that there is a devil and there is a God, this puts the two opposites in our head which might influence the laws of physics. Who knows, if we all have the same view, the world might become a little more harmonious.

We can even then assume that from this point of view, the beginning of the world was not that it came out of nowhere, but that the creator awoke, became aware, so then it proposes that the world was never created, it has always been, the beginning was just the awakening from the eternal sleep. This solves the paradox of how the world can come out of nowhere.

This is how I picture the big bang (if there was one), as the creator (the personality in the dream) awoke, the awareness could have shocked him, confused him, made him wonder, put all types of emotions/thought in him, thus the material of the world.

I must admit, I am in love with this theory that this is our dream.

Originally Posted by elucid

The argument goes that materiality though only different in the sense of smoothness, sharpness, softness is in essence the same. By that I mean that when broken down into its core, material is all the same. So the question goes that since atoms are "considered" material, how are they moved by immaterial?

This scenario is shown in the case of the brain, the atoms (material) are moved in our brain by our intentions (immaterial). How is this possible when the immaterial can not move material as there is no material to push against the other material.

Our brains intentions are also material.

Originally Posted by elucid

I get the idea that both the intention and the atom must be made up of the same thing. In my opinion, intention is immaterial, moving a "material" object points to the direction that the "material" atom is actually the same immaterial thing as the intention. To me this points to the idea that immaterial objects have material representations, this whole thing makes very good sense if we take the world-view that this whole thing is our mind and the material is the minds material such as emotions, intentions, desires, thoughts.

Yes, material.

Our brains intentions are also material.

What causes the intention? What causes that which causes intention? Do you see where I am getting at, it seems to me that at some point, we get the collision of immaterial with the material which seems impossible.

Yes, material.

Yes, I agree, considering that anything is considered material. I was focusing on the physicality of it. Anyway, the main point I was trying to get at was the world-view that this whole thing is a dream. I think you should give it a consideration and try to find any fault in it.

Originally Posted by elucid

What causes the intention? What causes that which causes intention? Do you see where I am getting at, it seems to me that at some point, we get the collision of immaterial with the material which seems impossible.

Material causes the intention. Maybe I don't see what you're getting at. At some point we exist as an organism that doesn't have intentions, as fetuses. Then material causes us to have thoughts and intentions. The intentions are made up of material things.

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes, I agree, considering that anything is considered material. I was focusing on the physicality of it. Anyway, the main point I was trying to get at was the world-view that this whole thing is a dream. I think you should give it a consideration and try to find any fault in it.

The idea that the whole thing is a dream is just a metaphor for impermanence. If the whole thing is literally a dream, then why are dreams clearly different from reality? Why can't I just make the girl I have a crush on appear when I open the door and then go make out with her? Because it's not all in my mind, there's a whole bunch of other stuff contributing to the experience.

Material causes the intention. Maybe I don't see what you're getting at. At some point we exist as an organism that doesn't have intentions, as fetuses. Then material causes us to have thoughts and intentions. The intentions are made up of material things.

Yes and what caused that material to move? How I see an escape from this is if you propose that there is a figure-eight cycle going on regarding the motion of particles, never stopping, always in motion, or at least a certain particle that is always in motion.

The idea that the whole thing is a dream is just a metaphor for impermanence.

Yes, you are looking at it from the motivational posters/movies. I am speaking philosophically and literally.

If the whole thing is literally a dream, then why are dreams clearly different from reality?

Ok, then I propose that anything that you can do in your dreams at night, you can easily get up in the morning and do them. But the question of why it is "hard" should be considered here. I propose that it is because we are so used to this mindset that we cant, that it takes time to unwind from it and re-wire ourselves, I am pretty sure you have heard of yogis who can walk on water, levitate, etc. There is a very interesting story about a woman who was in trance, once put into trance, her hand was over fire and it was there for about 10 minutes and it did not burn her. What I take from this is that the assumed property of heat that we associate with the fire was not there anymore, why when there was a change in her mind, there was a change in the property of reality?

Why can't I just make the girl I have a crush on appear when I open the door and then go make out with her?

Who said you cant? Is it because you tried and could not? We know from experience that when something can not be done for the first time, it does not necessarily mean you cant do it. I then propose that if you sit and train enough, upon your wish a girl will appear, but of course if it is a girl that you know, it could become freakish and could devastate her reality.

Anyway, like I said in my last post, I make it a challenge to find a single fault in the dream theory.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

One would be a universe that is made up of absolute particles, with absolute, physical properties. The universe would be an objective, physical constant, to which its actual properties are just what they seem to be - specks of separate materials with unique properties.

The other would be a universe made up of an 'energy-cloud' (for lack of a better analogy), in which particles and matter don't actually exist as absolutes - as the physical 'things' that we identify them as - but as 'illusions' or 'projections' of absolute 'things' in space/time. It would be like web of neural activity creating the world as it does a dream - in that the objects you see in your dreams aren't physically 'there.' They only seem as if they are 'there' (to mean: physically substantial) because your frame of reference is turned inward, and you are observing this neural activity and the illusions it produces.

Two very different things.

I don't see how either of those are necessary results of the universe being material or immaterial. Are there no other way in which the universe could be either? It seems like you're taking two different states which would cause you to label the universe one way or the other and then claiming that they're consequences of the universe being that way.

What would it mean for an object to objectively exist (either as a "projection" of something else or as an "absolute") but not be material? Our dreams are a material process as best as we can determine. The things that we perceive are perhaps not (whatever that means) but the perceptions themselves most certainly are.

The bottom line is that the universe is what it is. Attaching the label material or immaterial to it is pretty much entirely meaningless. By any reasonable definition of material, the universe is the pinnacle of such whatever it may be "made out of" (if that even makes sense). I see no reason to redefine things and confuse ourselves.

I agree with most of that, and as I tried to make clear previously: materialism even in its most primal form, that of point particles moving around three dimensional space, is no different from this 'projective model'; we do not perceive things as they truly are at all (dimensionless), because we perceive solids which take up space. So materialism has nothing to do with whether or not we can 'see noumena': it simply refers to the idea that there is something 'out there', and in both of these cases the 'absolute things' which project are indeed objectively 'out there'.

In fact it looks to me like O is talking in entirely epistemological terms; but materialism has nothing to do with epistemology, it belongs to ontology. Perhaps he is misunderstanding the common connotations of these words, because in fact I don't think he'd disagree with anything I just said.

Originally Posted by elucid

This is how I conclude it, it is very hard to distinguish if the material is truly physical or not, but what leads us closer to it is considering that it is very illogical for immaterial (basically nothing) to move something if it truly was physical, it makes perfect sense if the material is the same material created by our minds, which leads us to the idea of idealism.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by the immaterial moving the material. Even our intentions are material, because (as far as we know) they are an evolution of our reaction to stimuli (electrical responses) - which have evolved to become more and more complex over time, so as not to be merely a reaction to things, but a pre-emptive intention to force certain outcomes.

Originally Posted by elucid

First thing, if you read the book, The Holographic Universe, there are some very interesting stories such as a lady in trance holding her hand over fire and not getting burnt, levitations, creating out of season fruits, psychics with abilities to study an object by concentration and as though they go back in time. With the "mind" theory, it solves the paradox of nothing moving an object. Reincarnation, trees turning on and off, material coming out of nothing.

While these stories are interesting, I think it also important to take them with a grain of salt. Even in such interesting and well-structured books as The Holographic Universe, it is important to note that these are quite extra-ordinary claims. Given everything we have come to know (or have great proof of) about this world, to take such claims as truths would necessitate much more evidence/proof than simply reading about it in a book. Even though I thoroughly enjoy the book, and tend to put some stock into its claims, I am not prepared to structure my world view around the assumption that these stories are unquestionably true.

Originally Posted by elucid

I propose that in this theory that this whole thing is in our mind, you can not find one fault and you can solve any problem of the world. I have been trying for a long time, and I very much encourage everyone to think on this. I make it a challenge. If you guys have read my post, you should know that I am very strict when holding a view, if you read the thread,( Strictly, we know absolutely nothing, even the former sentence ) you will see the view I hold, but this is the reason I am proposing this challenge, this view that this whole thing is a dream is just so perfect, I can not find any fault in it.

The fault lies in the fact that most of the stories of supernatural/metaphysical occurrences simply do no have any concrete proof. If this world was so subject to our will and intentions, it would take on much more of a dream-like quality. There are, what, 6 billion+ people in this world? How many supernatural occurrences have you actually seen confirmed by the most credible sources (or, unambiguously, with your own eyes)? Now compare that with the percentage of dreamers on this site whose dreams taken on strange, non-linear twists, due to being merely constructs of their minds. There is a discrepancy there.

I am not saying this to say, unequivocally, that your theory is wrong. However, I am saying that it is incomplete. It is not as perfect as you believe it is. I believe the main draw is that it is something that 'can solve the world's problems', as you said, because any question or mystery can be solved with the postulation that "well, apparently 'magic' exists, so that could explain it." I simply don't believe there is enough evidence - as yet - to center one's world view around that idea.

Originally Posted by elucid

We can even then assume that from this point of view, the beginning of the world was not that it came out of nowhere, but that the creator awoke, became aware, so then it proposes that the world was never created, it has always been, the beginning was just the awakening from the eternal sleep. This solves the paradox of how the world can come out of nowhere.

We can assume anything. Simply because it solves a problem, does not mean it is correct.

For instance: Consider this article. Belief in God is not necessary for belief that the universe (as we know it) has always been. Science (in many circles) has presented many theories to that end. The idea that science only believes the universe came from 'nothing' is simply not true. In fact, it was more accurate to say that, for quite some time, the popular theory was that it came from a point so dense, that the entire universe was compacted into something about the size of a marble (which may or may not have been around for all of time), which then burst.

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes and what caused that material to move? How I see an escape from this is if you propose that there is a figure-eight cycle going on regarding the motion of particles, never stopping, always in motion, or at least a certain particle that is always in motion.

You have to be more specific. When you are talking about intention making material move. What material are you talking about, exactly?

Originally Posted by elucid

Ok, then I propose that anything that you can do in your dreams at night, you can easily get up in the morning and do them. But the question of why it is "hard" should be considered here. I propose that it is because we are so used to this mindset that we cant, that it takes time to unwind from it and re-wire ourselves, I am pretty sure you have heard of yogis who can walk on water, levitate, etc. There is a very interesting story about a woman who was in trance, once put into trance, her hand was over fire and it was there for about 10 minutes and it did not burn her. What I take from this is that the assumed property of heat that we associate with the fire was not there anymore, why when there was a change in her mind, there was a change in the property of reality?

The problem is that these are stories, and it is quite irresponsible to frame a concrete world view around stories. I have heard stories of the Earth being visited by aliens in ancient Egypt, who then built the great pyramids. I have heard stories that wizards and mages and witches openly used magic in this realm, once upon a time. I have heard stories that Moses parted the red sea. But am I going to take these stories as fact, without having more irrefutable evidence to back them up? No. I would file them away under 'questionable possibilities' but I will not allow them to form my actual belief on how the world works.

@PS and Xei:
I actually agree with what you both just said, however I think the problem is a semantic one. Perhaps 'immaterial', as PS said in the beginning, is the wrong word. I am talking in terms of lack of solid substance. However that property is best labeled, in your minds, is fine with me. I understand that whatever the universe is 'made of,' whether it is a collection of physical particles or a formless, non-physical (as we have come to understand the term 'physical') force, it is still a 'material.' I get that. I am simply talking about a universe that does not actually consist of physical, round planets, solid people, physical properties that are actually, objectively tangible in space-time. I believe that these are still two different universal perspectives and while the former could actually fit into the latter, once the frame of reference changes, they are not actually the same thing.

But yes, technically, the latter cannot be called 'immaterial.' I agree with that. I was simply using the word because I first misunderstood how the OP was using it.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by the immaterial moving the material. Even our intentions are material, because (as far as we know) they are an evolution of our reaction to stimuli (electrical responses) - which have evolved to become more and more complex over time, so as not to be merely a reaction to things, but a pre-emptive intention to force certain outcomes.

What I mean by the immaterial moving the material is the intention (immaterial) moving the brain particles. Of course, now it is argued that intention can be material, could you care to elaborate how intention can be material? This makes perfect sense if we take the world-view that this whole thing is our mind, that way any immaterial can be material such as emotion, thoughts, consciousness, etc.

Another thing I was trying to get at was that there seems to be a point where we see a collision of immaterial (without substance) moving the material, but now I am backing away from it as there is chance that it could not be the case. Backing away from this argument collapses the whole thread because that is what I was centering around this whole time.

Ok, I will then hold on this argument until I find a valid interaction between an immaterial (non-substance) with something material (physical, sorry for the whole terminology problem).

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes and what caused that material to move? How I see an escape from this is if you propose that there is a figure-eight cycle going on regarding the motion of particles, never stopping, always in motion, or at least a certain particle that is always in motion.

More material for a while, or possibly indefinitely, until you get to the beginning of the universe, which as far as I understand was still material at the beginning. I don't know what initially created material but the idea that something non-existent did doesn't really make sense. What is the immaterial made of? Like PS said "If the universe is immaterial then immaterial is the new material." Everything is made of something. Calling something immaterial makes no sense unless you believe that it is fake or an illusion. Do you think that something that was fake created something that is real?

Originally Posted by elucid

Yes, you are looking at it from the motivational posters/movies. I am speaking philosophically and literally.

Philosophical statements don't have to be literal, I was looking at it from a philosophical standpoint as well.

Originally Posted by elucid

Ok, then I propose that anything that you can do in your dreams at night, you can easily get up in the morning and do them. But the question of why it is "hard" should be considered here. I propose that it is because we are so used to this mindset that we cant, that it takes time to unwind from it and re-wire ourselves, I am pretty sure you have heard of yogis who can walk on water, levitate, etc. There is a very interesting story about a woman who was in trance, once put into trance, her hand was over fire and it was there for about 10 minutes and it did not burn her. What I take from this is that the assumed property of heat that we associate with the fire was not there anymore, why when there was a change in her mind, there was a change in the property of reality?

But that's not true, when have humans ever flown without some kind of help? I have heard of yogis like this but I've never seen one and am pretty sure that it's a hoax to get people to follow their religion or way of life. Even if they can do those things there are plenty of crazier things that you can't do in real life that you can do in dreams like completely transform a person standing in front of you, or make a wormhole and travel to an alien planet like the current Task of the month.

Originally Posted by elucid

Anyway, like I said in my last post, I make it a challenge to find a single fault in the dream theory.

It has absolutely no evidence to back it up, that's a pretty big fault.

i Do think that everything is material...
everythings has its material core, or is product from material reactions example love, hate...

When I first read the title of this post, I assumed that what the OP is asking is

"is the world solid, or energy?"

When I first read the title of this post, I assumed that what the OP is asking is

"is the world solid, or energy?"

I meant is it solid or not? I am assuming that energy also is material (solid), I dont see how it can be immaterial ( I understand you are referring to motion) but something has to be moved right? When we talk about motion, we are talking about motion of something right?