Define "physical".

Any object with mass is physical.

Words are defined by how they're used, not by a dictionary which merely describes the way in which they are used, often resulting in circular definition paths.

>>8816400
what is an object?

>>8816386
"Physical" refers to phenomena which are inherent to this universe.

>>8816409
Define "what"

>>8816386
>its not defining what it is its just saying what you can do to it
That's literally what tangible means though, by definition, able to be touched.

>>8816386
There is no flaw. Everything is materia.
Everything is physical. Mental is result of physical. Its just academic terms. Even thoughts are physical in brain in the most absolute definition. The term is useful for describing phenomena like abstract thoughts or emotions and such because you as a subject will make some subjective understanding of it which is still result of physical but the experience itself gives it phenomenological component to it. It is hard to explain as my english is limited but this is more of philosophy than science.

It basically means that definitions are constructs for our understanding of the world. Everything we experience is a construct though. This construct is refered to as mental but it is still made of physical. Everything is physical as we never experienced anything non physical.

>>8816413
"what" isn't a word that relates to an existing thing like object is, it is strictly a concept. so this doesn't have the same problem.

>>8816412
so now you're just saying that physical is just a characteristic of the universe. you're doing more to describe the universe than define physical. in fact, you haven't defined physical at all in that post.

>>8816418
that sentence was not talking about not being able to define tangible in any meaningful way, it was about not being able to define physical in any meaningful way.

>>8816419
it seems like you're saying the same thing as the pic says: "relating to things perceived through the senses". But that doesn't tell me anything about what it is, just that we can perceive it.

>>8816386
Define "define".

>>8816434
"define" isn't a word that relates to an existing thing like physical is, it is strictly a concept. so this doesn't have the same problem.

>>8816437
Uhh, what? Adequate definitions have nothing to do with whether or not something is physical.

>>8816386
How do babies ever manage to learn a language if all words are defined in terms of other words to begin with?

Sorry you're a brainlet stuck on semantics.

>>8816430
>But that doesn't tell me anything about what it is, just that we can perceive it.
I mean, what more is necessary? "Physical" is extremely vague and broad, so it's definition is similarly so. Seems like you're just going to no true scotsman about a "meaingful" definition.

wtf I hate science now

>>8816430
You will never know what it is in absolute definition because you are part of it. You cant experience objectively. Everything you will find is our best guesses and constructs that seems to work or not to a degree. You can only perceive through senses so everything you will find will be a result of senses.

You will never know in the end. The meme of cant know nuffin is true that you wont be able to. Platos cave is the furthest you can go. Objective knowledge is impossible to gather so our definition of objective is when a lot of people perceive it similarly and implications that it works somehow (depends on what you do for example if you throw an object it will fall-gravity). Everything you come up with is not the actual reality but our shared reality and all these definitions will be used just for understanding this reality we live in.

Definitions are not set in stone absolute algorithms. The definitions you provided actually do tell you what it is in the most board and as objective as possible way we can. It depends what you want from it really.

As I said objective knowledge is not possible to gain and therefore you will never know what it really is just how you perceive it and from that you can imply what it probably is but never the real "it".

>>8816456
>reads kant once
spare me your horrible philosophy please. everything you just said is a long-winded excuse for not being able to define things properly.

>>8816386
Something that has mass
> what's mass
a positive real number

>>8816460
It is evident you dont understand what you ask for. Provided definitions in Op are correct
Its noones fault you are too stupid to understand what physical means.

>>8816460
You are asking a philosophical question without wanting a philosophical answer. Definitions (like physical) are based and dependent upon paradigm and subject of study. Physical will mean different think in physics and different in psychology for example. Even in physics there will be multiple definitions of physical depending on context of research and paradigm.

You wont get any answer to your question if you dont specify the context of your definition. THere is no one rule all.

>>8816386
Circular definitions happens all the time with language.

>>8816386
bad troll, but

physical <=> causal, literally existing in time

read heidegger or maybe shiopenhauer

>>8816544
But philosophy is not science so I cant. I would be branded a pseud by sci and everyone knows that sci consists of 130+IQ OPs.