Wind is not made from anything. It is the name of a movement of the air.

air moves when energy is imparted to it. Heat (more energy or less energy, depending) is the primary energy involved. There is also the force of gravity and the rotation of the planet. A hot desert imparts heat to the air above it, causing it to rise. air more distant from the rising warm air moves in to take its place. Cold air is heavier than warm air and tends to sink. By such mechanism air moves, becoming wind -- or maybe just a breeze.

I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online.

I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online. — The Opposite

How about Nitrogen, Oxygen, water, and pollution?

Atmosphere of Earth

Wind is moving air. :D So, I guess it's "made from" air and motion?

but is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them exist?

Is it made of something physical or not? — The Opposite

The consensus seems to be that what can be perceived through our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) is regarded as physical/material. The way it is with perception and reality is that it ain't necessary that all the senses be activated to determine whether something is material/physical or not. So, we're happy to conclude that a microwave in our kitchen is material/physical even if we can't smell/taste the microwave because we can see it, feel it with our fingers, and hear it too. Similarly, a woman's perfume is considered physical even though no one in faer right mind ever tastes it; that we can see it inside a bottle, hear it slosh around, and can feel it on our skin is enough to infer that perfume is material/physical.

Contrast the above rule of thumb for deciding the material/physical nature of things perceived through the senses with hallucinations. One simple test to determine whether what one is seeing with one's eyes is a hallucination or not would be to engage the other senses. We could for example try and touch whatever it is that we're seeing and if the result is negative i.e. we can't touch that which we're seeing, the chances are high that what we're seeing is a visual hallucination. A similar argument could be made for hallucinations in other sensory modalities - tactile hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, gustatory hallucinations, etc. One way, ergo, of ruling out hallucinations (perception without stimuli) is to bring into service senses other than the one whose perception is in question.

Now, wind is felt by our integumentary sensors and even heard by our ears but no, it can't be seen or tasted or smelt i.e. wind excites only a part of our total sensory apparatus (skin and ears) and the other senses can't be pressed into service for they don't pick up anything. How do you know then whether wind is something material/physical and not a hallucination? Of course it's true that the physical effects of wind are well-documented: trees sometimes grow along the direction the wind blows, we can see objects like paper, plastic cups, sand, moving with the wind, geologists have studied wind erosion, to name a few. So, wind can't be a hallucination as it has an effect on objects that can be observed and confirmed, something that would've been impossible if wind were a hallucination.

Last but not the least, I recall watching a horror flick where a ghost, a spirit, "touches" a living person and the latter "feels" it on her hand but, intriguingly, can't see (or smell or taste) anything. As far as our sensory system is concerned, there's no difference at all between wind and a ghostly "touch".

I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that?

Is it made of something physical or not? — The Opposite

Must be one of those "emergent" properties I keep hearing about. I think emergence is a murky concept and doesn't answer any of the questions people think it does. But wind is emergent. If you look at air molecules you can't see that they'd make wind. If you look at the air in a room you can't see that it would make wind. But when it moves a little, it's a breeze. When it moves a lot, it's wind. When it moves a lot a lot, it's a gale.

Interesting that air has a different name depending on how fast it's moving. For example a car that moves is a moving car. There's not a different name for it.

Well this is a puzzler alright.

I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that? — The Opposite

For better or worse, I feel I lack the "ability" to see supernatural phenomena - I just don't have it in me, you know, that particular mindset that I suppose makes a person susceptible to experiences of such kind. I'm a skeptic with a capital S and it probably affects my mind in ways that prevent it from appreciating the very possibility of the supernatural let alone actually experiencing it.

is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them exist — The Opposite

When you really get down to the physical bottom of things, everything is like waves in the ocean, patterns of energy density propagating through media (the media at the bottom here being quantum fields, and all other media being themselves already patterns in those fields).

So if wind and waves don't exist, then by extension nothing exists.

But things exist, thus so does wind.

Differences of air pressure cause air to move from high pressure regions toward low pressure regions, creating further pressure differentials. The key scientific instrument is the barometer.

Is it made of something physical or not? — The Opposite

Wind is made of smaller winds, which in turn are made of smaller ones and so on ad infinitum. Some say this makes no sense, but to let understanding stop at what can not be understood is a high attainment.

Some ancient peoples thought of it as an element, not further analyzable, e.g. here from Pali:

dhātu:
Element; property, impersonal condition. The four physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind (motion), and fire (heat). The six elements include the above four plus space and consciousness.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html

The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it.

Beans.

Beans. — Banno

And broccoli, and... I remember there were two others in an old joke about the "four winds", but I can't find that joke on Google to refresh my memory.

but is wind similar to waves in the ocean — The Opposite

What happens at the altitude of the jet stream is highly influential on surface winds. There are wave patterns at that level, so that, for instance, a trough generates unsettled weather at the surface, with low pressure systems appearing. It's complicated trying to predict the behavior of the jet stream. Or it was many years ago when I was a meteorologist.

Applied philosophy.

The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it. — Mww

Can you explain a bit better please.

so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particles?

...and other forms of flatus.

are you a follower of quantum field theory?

I don't know what you mean by "follower", but I know about the theory, yes.

what do you know about it?

It would be quite a lot of typing to state everything I know about quantum field theory. Do you have a more specific question, or want a broad overview of it?

Just agreeing with you. However we each come to our conclusions doesn't matter all that much.

so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particles — The Opposite

You can't beat fundamental particles for conceivability. Maybe little vibrating strings or

*drumroll*

consciousness packets. Little monads. Little blobs of awareness. Think about it.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wind/