Would the part of your post I selected be a concise definition? I would love to have a tight definition, one which states the absolute minimum
needed to qualify as physical. That would help to judge if something is physical, or uf something is a trait of physicalness (a common dispute in debates). Let me give an example.
If I say one requires balance to ride a bicycle, can I then go on to say riding a bike is anything that requires balance? That sort of logic is what I don't like about the definition Loseyourname and StatusX give. They basically define physical as anything subject to logic and/or which obeys mathematical laws. I've disputed that because I don't see why some cosmic consciousness would not have particles and not be subject to relativity (using your definition now), and yet still have ordered aspects to it which could be represented logically or mathematically.
Let me ask you one thing more (well, it's several questions about the same thing). Do you think my definition is generally correct (that "physicalness is mass, immediate effects of mass, and all that which has come about from the presence of mass")? Do you think it automatically includes your elements (i.e., quantum and relativity factors)? Do you think it is more basic than your definition? Maybe too basic? If so, do you think my definition would be improved by adding yours, something like this:
"Physicalness is mass and the effects of mass, and exhibits consistency with the Standard Model of particle interactions or Relativity."