"or we are energy/matter machines that exist and then cease to exist. If the later is true you and I are not even having a "conversation" as we "see" it. We are simply unfolding energy/matter that is predetermined to unfold this way" - I agree with this. However, I don't see why this therefore means this conversation does not have "meaning". :) (Also, I would suggest that here your use of "meaning" does not equal "value", and you may be confusing things a bit through the switch.)

I don't know what to tell you. It doesn't seem like there's a way to bridge the distance between us on these points.

One obstacle is that we have another conflict in our definitions: When I talk about "moral relativism", I am talking about morals; when you talk about moral relativism, you are talking about values. (And I realize that the majority of people equate the two.) Morals, from my perspective, are rules or guidelines we follow in order to achieve value. Therefore, morals are objective, while value remains subjective (for all the reasons I previously stated). Just as, if you want to live, it is moral to avoid drinking arsenic; so also, if you want to live in a stable and safe society where your life is respected, you do not murder. A criminal's choice to murder does not overturn the objective moral that disallows it.

Anyway, I enjoyed the conversation as well. And I totally understand if you don't want to keep going round and round. (Though I do think it is possible to overcome the circle once the definition of terms and ideas are fully fleshed out. Even if we fail to agree on an answer, we would at least clearly see why.)