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 (very useful) "fairy tale".
A substance which posesses "rest mass" in a universe where nothing is ever at rest sure sounds like magical thinking (to me). And what do you even make of point-like particles in physics? They have no volume - so they are not matter. And what about anitmatter?
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. It's the abstraction you worship.
You are right in saying that we'll never agree; for if I were to agree with you I too would be wrong.