You've hit on a very profound point, and it's one that resonates with many physicists and philosophers of science! The feeling that the universe, at its most fundamental level, is described by such elegant, simple, and interconnected mathematical relationships can indeed be astonishing and lead to deep questions. Let's break down your observation: 1. **"Simple, straightforward answers have been staring at us all along..."** * In hindsight, yes. Once the pieces of the puzzle (like `h`, `c`, `G`) are identified and their roles understood through theories like relativity and quantum mechanics, the derivation of natural units like Planck units seems almost inevitable. * However, "staring at us" implies they were obvious. The journey to discover these constants, understand their meaning, and develop the theoretical frameworks to connect them was incredibly arduous, spanning centuries of scientific effort, brilliant insights, and painstaking experimentation. It wasn't obvious until it was. 2. **"...we just haven't been willing to admit there's something non-materialist about physics that defines its existence?"** This is where we step into the fascinating intersection of physics and philosophy. Here's how to approach this: * **Physics as a Description of Material Reality:** Mainstream physics operates under the methodological assumption of naturalism/materialism. It seeks to explain the universe in terms of matter, energy, space, time, and the forces and laws that govern their interactions. The success of this approach has been phenomenal. * **The Nature of Physical Laws:** Are the laws of physics (like `E=mc²` or the principles that lead to Planck units) themselves "material"? No. They are abstract, mathematical descriptions of observed regularities and relationships *within* the material universe. They are concepts, ideas, equations. * **The "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics":** Physicist Eugene Wigner famously wrote about "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences." Why should the universe be comprehensible through mathematics, and often *elegant* mathematics at that? This is a deep mystery. * Some see this as evidence of a deeper, perhaps non-material, order or intelligence underlying reality (a form of mathematical Platonism, where mathematical truths exist independently). * Others see mathematics as a powerful language developed by humans that happens to be very good at modeling the patterns we observe in the universe. The "elegance" might be a reflection of our own cognitive biases towards simplicity or a genuine feature of an underlying simplicity in nature. * **Information as Fundamental?** Some contemporary physicists and philosophers are exploring the idea that information might be more fundamental than matter or energy. In this view (e.g., John Archibald Wheeler's "it from bit"), the physical world emerges from informational processes. This could be interpreted as a step away from strict, classical materialism. * **Consciousness and Observation:** Quantum mechanics, particularly the measurement problem, brings the role of the observer (and potentially consciousness) into discussions about the nature of reality, though this is a highly debated and often contentious area. * **The "Why" Questions:** Physics is excellent at describing the "how" of the universe. But when we ask "why are the laws this way?" or "why do these fundamental constants have these specific values?", physics often reaches its limits and philosophy or even theology begins. The existence of these finely-tuned constants that allow for a complex universe (including us) is part of what's known as the fine-tuning argument, which some use to argue for a designer. **So, is there something "non-materialist" defining physics' existence?** * If by "physics" you mean the *physical universe itself*, current science describes it in terms of material components and energy fields. * If by "physics" you mean the *laws and principles that govern the universe*, then yes, these laws are abstract, conceptual, and mathematical. Their origin and the reason for their specific form are profound philosophical questions. The fact that these abstract laws so perfectly describe material reality is the source of the wonder you're feeling. It's not necessarily that scientists "haven't been willing to admit" it. Rather, the scientific method is primarily focused on what can be empirically tested and falsified within a naturalistic framework. The philosophical implications, while fascinating and important, often lie just beyond what the scientific method itself can directly address. Many great scientists have been deeply moved by the order, beauty, and mathematical elegance of the universe, and have pondered these deeper questions. Einstein, for instance, often spoke of a "cosmic religious feeling" inspired by the harmony of natural law. Your astonishment is a testament to the profound beauty and intelligibility of the universe. The simplicity you see in equations like `ħω = mc²` (when constants are set to 1) isn't just a mathematical trick; it hints at a deep coherence in the fabric of reality, a coherence that continues to inspire awe and drive scientific inquiry. Whether that coherence points to something "non-material" in an ontological sense is a question that continues to be debated and explored at the frontiers of science and philosophy.