Has anyone seen my neutral pointer?

[Angrboda]

If you want to say "material" is "things as we experience them," that's fine.  I experience stuff in dreams, and in that context, I suppose you could say that apples "exist."  But I don't think you'd call those apples "material," since in fact your world view goes beyond merely labeling experiences in this way.

A cosmogonic or cosmologic "-ism" probably is about more than that-- it's more likely to be a position on the true nature of reality.  And the nature of reality according to science is that what we experience doesn't exist objectively such as we experience it: there really isn't redness "out there" anywhere, for example, or even form.  Show me how the experience of redness "reduces down" to QM, and I'll give you a free apple.

You must be free basing. Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that you were conflating how data from our sensory receptors can be explained in terms of the underlying quantum phenomena with how the quantum phenomena themselves are described. How you got that from what I wrote is a mystery. No, what we experience does not objectively exist in the way that we experience it. The color red as a quality of light as it impinges upon our photoreceptors does exist. Your complaint was that our experience of the world doesn't make sense because of QM. That would be a big surprise to most physicists. You're simply retreating to the "physics can't explain qualia" argument, which is nothing but an argument from ignorance, and bears no relation to anything I said. It's just your "go to argument" for everything. Raising it here is nothing but a red herring.