Notice how you are constantly appealing to abstract unobservables to make your claims. No shame in that - all science does it. Quantities, numbers, fields, processes etc. etc. etc.
That is precisely the metaphysical woo woo you are busy criticising. Formalism is all about turning that woo-woo into well-defined concepts.
What's a "process"? Show me one.
Only way I know how is to give you more metaphysical woo woo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus
You know all that religious woo-woo about omniscience? We are still talking about it and even using it...
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/principle+of+omniscience
All this religious/devine woo-woo...
The central dogma of computational trinitarianism holds that Logic, Languages, and Categories are but three manifestations of one divine notion of computation. There is no preferred route to enlightenment: each aspect provides insights that comprise the experience of computation in our lives.
You still haven't figured out that "matter" is yet another man-made concept? An abstract idea. A collective noun. Itself a "fairy tale". A very useful fiction.
A substance which posesse "rest mass" in a universe where nothing is ever at rest sure is magical thinking (to me).
You haven't yet come to the self-realization that you are committing the reification fallacy by promoting a man-made concept to a totalizing/generalizing/all-encompassing ontological status. Matter is your God.
>You can't prove a God exists
I never mentioned God, but here we are... You can't prove that matter exists either.
Matter is your God. It's the abstraction you worship.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...