Red or not?

Red or not? I tell you: "That table is red". And I point it to you with your finger. I see and I know that the table is red and you see it red too. It therefore seems that you and I do not need anything else to understand each other. Everything runs smoothly. But. But if I am curious and say a first "why?", Then everything starts moving and this, which appeared clear and simple, is no longer. I wonder: "why does that table appear red to me?" And I reply: "I imagine that the light beats on the surface of the table, that the surface absorbs all the colors, less the red, and that the red, rejected and rejected, arrives at my eyes ". That table, therefore, is of every color less than red. Red is not red. But. But if I ask myself a second question, this time about the nature of that light that forms the colors, asking "what is light?", Then I find that there are those who answer that it is electromagnetic waves, who sustains its nature corpuscular, that is, it would be made of small particles. And now it is said that light is waves and particles, depending on what and how I am looking. And, therefore, the true nature of light escapes me, hides behind my eyes, plays hide-and-seek with me, it's like saying, "I'm like you want me, but you'll never know how I really am". In short, two questions are enough and all that was clear, presents itself to us now as a representation for the eyes, something hidden, mysterious. It takes very little to have the perception of the mystery, of the vertiginous chasm that is behind everything that appears. Or not?