Let me finish with one example to make you analyse what you mean by physical material object.I do understand that nature is inherently probabilistic, and that measurable quantities do not have well-defined values all the time.
Having said that, from my amateur point of view ( and I don't mean that facetiously), how does your reply address the fundamental question of whether elementary particles are physical, material objects or waves?
Take an electron and a proton. Each has a certain mass. Let's assume that they really are physical material objects and the mass, of course, represents the amount of physical material in each.
Now you put the two together to form a hydrogen atom. The mass of the hydrogen atom must be the sum of its parts.
But, actually, it's not. It is less than the mass of the particles that make it up. It is in fact less by the amount of binding energy in the atom.
Now this doesn't prove that particles aren't particles. But it does show that a simplistic requirement that particles be well-defined material things is misplaced.
It forces you to reconsider the concept of particles, mass and the nature of physical quantities.
How much of your mass is the particles that make you up and how much is binding energy or other nuclear energy? Is nuclear energy material too?
The irony of one of your previous questions is that 20tb century scientists did not sweep anything aside. Instead, they looked in every last nook and cranny to establish as wide and deep an understanding of nature as possible. They discovered more things than were ever imagined in any discussion about wave-particle duality.