OK visualize. I have in my view a kind of snack, a product. Can you see it? If so, what is it? I know you aren't claiming to have this skill, but at least this is the kind of test that could be performed. Just with more scientific rigor.
How does remote viewing prove that the universe is not only material? I can imagine several mechanisms that could accomplish it. What if all of us were highly sophisticated androids only we didn't know it? We send out billions of spore sized sensors that spread over the planet and report back information in the form of sensory impressions. Note, I'm not admitting that sensory viewing is real, just saying what if it were real.
Remote viewing is a particular flavor of ESP. People have been claiming ESP for time untold. It would be quite easy to verify ESP. Unlike ghosts or UFOs, ESP can be tested under controlled conditions. Yet, apart from a few specious tests, it has never produced reliable results, let alone a mechanism by which it might operate. You would think, what with all these strong proponents, they would theorize a mechanism by which ESP could occur, and then devise tests that would verify it - or falsify it. But you don't see a lot of unbiased science happening, do you? Do you see these proponents exploring the mechanism by which the brain might communicate telepathically, then then testing that theory to establish its veracity? No, ESP works best when viewed through the veil of mystery.
I have not provided anything by which you could judge how much knowledge I have. Your judgement stands self-evidently false. Unless you are refuting my one assertion that remote viewing is a subset of ESP - i.e. extra-sensory perception.
It is, literally, Extra-Sensory Perception. Problem is, no one has been able to put forth anything more than conjecture about what mechanism might be behind the results of the experiments. There's no corroborating evidence (say, a previously unknown organ in the brain, or a detectable EM frequency), so they remain just that - conjecture. Other than simply describing puzzling results in lab experiments, it doesn't have a definition (since a definition would specify a testable mechanism). It's like defining dark energy. So far, we can't; we simply have results, but no model/mechanism. (The difference between ESP and DE is that anyone with the right instruments can look up and acquire their own data for themselves and, in doing so, verify that the phenomenon is not illusory, biased or faked.)
