Hi Holiday

I think the answer will be to some extent a matter of opinion. I'd say it is material form that requires an explanation in terms of something beyond material form. I suppose we can say that matter arises from matter but not many people think this idea makes sense. I certainly don't.

Then there is consciousness, the background dependence problem, the extra dimensions of string theory, nonlocality and so forth. Then there are all the ancient problems of philosophy, which are undecidable in the absence of something which transcends form. For 'form' here we could read 'extension,' so for physicists who conclude that extension is an illusion of some sort, of which there are many, the universe as a whole would require such an explanation. Or so it seems to me.

At this time there is no fundamental theory of anything which is not predicated on a phenomenon beyond material form, and this suggests to me that no such theory is possible.

Maybe there'd be a difference between an answer to this when looking at actuality as opposed to reality. Maybe there is not material, eveything simply doesn't work that way, only in reality, to the mind is there the separation between material and immaterial.

If you used the term 'appearance' instead of 'actuality' I'd agree. Once we assume that matter contains some essence which persists from moment to moment it becomes paradoxical and inexplicable.

So many things in life can be just accepted or desire explanation. The scientists tries in a rational way to explain the details. The faithful feel they have the answers then there are the few who i count my self as one who continue to ponder on the larger picture. We see the observable universe and wonder is there more than science and are the faithful too simplistic..