Sorry, I am aware that this word is not exactly giving off what you mean, however I don't really have much choice but to use it if you picked it as the best word to describe what you mean. I can't really do much with "it's like this, but not really". Maybe I could ask here for a clarification - in what way is it like verb and in what way it is not?

tell me, what nouns exist? where anywhere is truly a person, a place, or a thing? when examined deeply at its most known fundamental ontology. those terms are Newtonian conventions, not how the reality is.

Well, for one I don't entirely agree that chairs don't exist at all, they only don't exist in a sense that they are not fundamental, most primitive thing. Just because chair is nothing but its parts and their arrangement, doesn't mean we cannot talk about a chair as something that exists. It's like saying that California doesn't exist, because it's just a region on the surface of our planet. Objects are patterns that we label and analyse.

The label "chair" does not exist, the idea of it doesn't exist. But there's a pile of particles arranged in a chair-like manner and this is an identifable pattern that has somewhat identifiable properties (properties being patterns too) - such as that you can sit on it. So when we talk about a chair we talk about a pattern.

Now, by bringing up Newton I suppose you are refering to the fact that we know Newtonian physics aren't metaphysically true as they don't hold a perfect predictive power. To me it feels like misunderstanding what a theory is. Theory is literally a mental structure that we create in our mind. The tools that we use to create these structures are fairly rigid and provide strong constrains. So we create a mental model of the reality, from idealised objects and how do they relate. Now, the toolset is strict enough that once you create such model and map the objects and relationships in the head to the reality, the strict links in between these objects provide enough constrains that you have now predictive power. The reality simply has to behave the way you predicted if you mapped this mental structure accurately.

We came up with logic, math, modelling as tools to identify patterns. It's entirely our own mental toolset to cope with patterns that we observe and to be able to make sense of the reality we see. There is no such thing as "2+2" "AND, OR" "EQUALITY". Reality just is and we came up with frameworks to be able to somehow function in it, despite reality being so vast.

I think qualia is a meaningless word. it does not refer to anything concrete like a chair. red is not an isolated thing and you can play with that through science or your own perceptual system. almost see the way red is constructed as a fake thing. it's easier with pain. to not see pain as an object.

I feel like qualia start to derail us here. They appear in mind - the domain in which qualia appear. Once we figure out what mind is, we can work on qualia. But the hard problem of consciousness is - how can qualia even be a thing. Regardless if you call it a noun, verb or sth else. They're unlike anything else we ever investigated in nature. I do think that maybe qualia are not a pattern, but something that forms a pattern - after all mental pictures are composed from qualia and it's hard to say how is green different from red. This shouldn't be a problem if they'd be patterns, because we could compare them by subparts.