Though you think science has settle the question, it is not settled as demonstrated by this article from 2011:<quoted text>
Is a water wave a 'real, material object'? A water wave will interfer with itself if it goes through two openings in a barrier and won't do so if there is a barrier between the openings. The electron probability wave is just as 'real' and 'material' as a water wave. But the same types of interference patterns can be seen for water waves as for probability waves (although on much different scales).
As far as I can tell, you are getting confused by terms like 'real' and 'material' that are rather vague. This is probably due to your philosophical position and provides a good example of how philosophical assumptions lead to confusion. Unless there are *very* precise definitions of these (and many other ) concepts, you will find yourself running around in circles as philosophers tend to do.
Most phycists tend not to use the word 'material' any longer, except when applied to macroscopic phenomena--far above the level of subatomic particles. It is a word that tends to confuse rather than clarify.
" http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-sh... ;
You have not yet provided any links backing your postion.