The meaning of “physical” is important for many purposes. But it seems to be very difficult, if not impossible to provide a satisfying definition of the “physical”. Hempel's dilemma and more recently, Stoljar's dilemma, aim to show that we lack a decent understanding of the meaning of “physical” and therefore, of physicalism. In this paper I present a definition of “physical” that is robust enough to fit our physicalist intuitions and yet permissive enough to accommodate many, quite different theories that are compatible with physicalism. I then show how my definition provides a solution to the dilemmas. I also compare my definition with others that have been offered in the literature and show why mine is preferable.