the point about not being able to prove these matter is even more significant than noted by Little Hawk....

when two physical scientists compare notes and opinions on some test, theory or fact, they usually have a standard of reference and can look at each other's ideas and experiments and perhaps double-check for accuracy. When even two serious Philosophers compare notes, they have logical and linguistic standards for being sure they are speaking the same language and referring to the same ideas, though it can take longer and be trickier.

But when two proponents of meta-physical phenomena compare experiences, they are both referring to subjective phenomena and 'personal' experiences, and can never be sure their referents ARE inherently comparable. Since they, by definition, deal with what is untestable, there is no way to easily separate the experience from the linguistic expression of the experience.

such statements as "Matter is simply spirit at a lower rate of vibration." and the examples given, become circular and merely linguistic constructions which are essentially about the mind of the proponent, rather than objective reality.

(I tried to formulate this in a way that did not sound insulting or condescending...I'm not sure I succeeded. When I re-read it, it sounds like all I am saying is: "Oh, you're just talkin' about air"...*wry smile*...but there is really an attempt to get a handle on the basis of our different approaches.)