>>That is, light, since it interacts within a material universe, nust therefore be a part of that universe and one could derive from that that light then has some sort of material qualities.
>
>Because light interacts with the material universe, the most you could derive is that both may have some properties in common, not that light has material properties.
>
>Isn't it just the case that light & matter are both just forms of energy in a particular configuration ? Both light & the 'material universe' are simply our perceptions of those configurations.

Michael,

But that "lower level" where they do interact is what I'm trying to get at. That is, there is a level beyond which neither exist.

You mention something I think is really important to remember: our perception. The problem I see with so many people who "know" something is that there is always something beyond what they know, often in opposition to their specific knowledge level. What I'm suggesting is that this is the case here.... We build instruments that extend our senses but there are senses we cannot build instruments for which leads us to conclude that instruments of measurement are inherently incomplete.

Build me a Love-O-Meter.. Oh wait, I have seen those. You put a quarter in them and squeeze the handle. <g> Setiously, there are a lot of phenomenon we cannot materially measure. That doesn't mean those phenomenon do not exist, just they they cannot be measured materially. My "guess" is that at the sub-sub-particle level we reach this point...

Best,

DD