Matter, Tangibility, EM, and Consciousness
What about defining matter as dielectric condensate?
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but interesting. Matter can be a gas. Does that make it not a condensate? Does a single atom qualify as a condensate?
The dielectric part may have more potential. I like to think about light and electromagnetism in the opposite way that we have theorized. Instead of a disembodied force or field that haunts pseudo-vacuum spacetime which impedes its permittivity and permeability, I flip the foreground and background. What I propose is that EM is a reverse-image, falsely objectified abstraction. The genuine, concrete phenomenon that EM theory is misinterpreting is something like the Sensory-Motive agency of Tangibility - a fundamental and objectifying sense modality/awareness/consciousness.
In this scenario, instead of measuring magnetic fields in terms of permeability and electric fields in terms of permittivity I want to look at the opposite. Matter can then be defined as a geometry of *relative* impediment to universal permeability/permittivity of...sense/consciousness/feeling. Matter is an emergent separation rendered as aesthetically spatialized relationships of impermeability/unpermittivity...slowing of timescale, resistance, entropy. Space is how insensitivity is rendered in the medium of tangiblility.
Invisibility is like visible space and light is like visible "matter". Silence is like aural space and sound is like aural matter. It's all sense experience. Sense wrapping itself up in *relative* insensitivity, nested in ever more complex ways (physics > chemistry > organic chemistry > biology > zoology > anthropology....) so that the most direct access domain (psychology-anthropology for us) renders the other domains in ever more masked, objectified, and inanimate-seeming avatars. This masking is a more or less accurate indication of the distance between the timescales of the sense experience sample rate.