We are simply applying names to distinct phenomena. It doesn't matter what mass is as the question is possibly meaningless. What is important is that particles

We are simply applying names to distinct phenomena. It doesn't matter what mass is as the question is possibly meaningless. What is important is that particles behave distinctly from waves. And that knowing the mass of something is informative of its expected behavior given a set of circumstances. v=m*a. Possibly this was fact was intentionally underlined by the names given to quarks, including the fact that the behavior no longer maps into an analog in our everyday experience of phenomena so lets just use relational semantics or obscure names to defeat the urge to analogize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Element... The only meaningful question around phenomena and meaning is the connection between the two. Is mind a property of reality or emergent accident? Is matter a figment of mind or is mind a figment of matter? If that is not what is being sought, beyond that metaphysical query the only reasonable search for meaning behind phenomena is to understand the limits to thought that a conceptual model presents the researchers, so as to avoid dead ends in research direction.