And then you said: This is a baseless assertion, and almost certainly false. Let's just say that every time it has been put to the test it has failed. Perhaps you could cite an example to the contrary.
Okay, but this will be more an analogy than the "example" you are looking for. For you are looking for something that you can prove, the underlying assumption being, I gather, that only that which lends itself to direct physical test can be "real." Which implicitly reduces reality to only its physical aspect, and so begs the question of what is real.
Notwithstanding, take the example of a book, any book at all. Books typically have lots of words in them and pictures, too, sometimes. Those words and pictures are not spontaneous, emergent properties of the physico-chemical constituents of the book materials -- i.e., paper, ink. Neither are their meanings derivative from such properties. The source of their meanings is not physical at all.
Just think about that for a bit, and draw your own conclusions. I have to run for now, but hope to be back shortly.
Wrong level of analysis. They are the emergent properties of the physical books, the people who wrote them, and the culture in which the people were born and educated. All of these components are emobdied. There are no invisible or undetectable force fields or spooky mumbo-jumbo.
Don't accuse science of reductionism, when it is you who are unable or unwilling to adapt your level of analysis to the task at hand.
I wish I could hang around and participate this afternoon - but, sigh, I must be off to assist in finishing work again. LOL! I'll catch up this evening, though.