On the Immaterial.
I've been meaning to write this for a while and finally had the inspiration.
1. What is matter ? or.. The atom is not plum pudding.
When you think of matter do you associate it with the seemingly solid and dense chunks of classical empirical renown, or do you equate it with the fundamental force interactions at the tiniest level of the universe which one would expect to be basic? Or do you weigh in a little on both sides, perhaps having a pragmatic bias filling the ontological gap in favour of the first, maybe a mystical curiousity inclining you to ontologically favour the latter a bit more?
Perhaps you're not so entirely aware of the fact that matter does not have a continuous smooth definition across its orders of magnitude - that at the very very large scale a clump of matter appears to behave like it was a hole of infinite depth (time axis) and capacity, then on more moderate scales it behaves like it actually was the solid universe that we percieve ourselves coming into contact with every day, while on a very very tiny scale like it is a vastly empty shell comprising random blips and bumps of force leaping out of nothingness.
Matter is all of these things.
2. Etymology or... immaterial is just a word.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology | Date: 1996 places the origin of the word "immaterial" circa 1300CE and relates it to the word incorporeal (meaning without body) dated about the same time.
The coining of the word immaterial predates the quantum-relativity era by 600 years, this should tell us a lot about what meaning the word was intended to convey. It was clearly not intended to refer to a negation of the current day conception of material informed by our recent gargantuan leaps in knowledge of the universe. No. The original negation applies strictly to the scale of small to very large orders of magnitude, the nakedly visible universe.
3. So... Is immaterial proven or disproven?
Some would say that although there is not one smoothly continuous description of the nature of matter the three constrasting versions are strongly suggestive of a well defined continuum (or loop), and moreover, they all are clearly shown to refer to the very one and same phenomenon - therefore nothing can be immaterial and immaterial has no meaning in contemporary dialogue - it is therefore disproved.
Then some others would say, contrarily, that the original prediction of the existence of incorporeal phenomena, or that which is 'without body' (where the referent of body is no more or less the antiquated conception of visibly naked matter as universally and immutably solid and dense) is proven, by virtue of real objects having been empirically and logically proven to be without this antiquated conception of body, and moreover that those objects are undeniably the very objects predicted by the original claimants (ie light, the very very large and the very very fundamental).
However, I say, both are right - the immaterial of circa 1300CE is proven and has been (provisionally) better defined AND thus the word immaterial has no meaning, or reason to exist, in contemporary dialogue.
[mod edit for "embarassing typo"]
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist