The problem we have communicating is that I think you and Alamo engage in reductionism when defining the concept of "physical".
Is a quark a physical object? A photon? An electron? Do you believe these represent the end of our understanding of the physical? How do you assign limits to the properties of physical objects?
Subatomic particles have properties that were not imagined by our ancestors. Heck, they have properties that are impossible to imagine, and which have to be described by mathematics. If you place arbitrary limits to the properties of physiclity, then you are going to wind up with a lot of phenomena that are excluded.
These things may represent the beginning of our understanding of the physical; none of them seems to be exhaustively understood as yet. Also, the entire idea of a "physical object" probably needs to be rethought; for all such objects are such as they are because of their participation in universal fields (e.g., particle, gage, Higgs fields). That which is perceived to be "solid" may not actually be so; rather "solidity" may be but the surface presentation of a phenomenon that has a nature and causes that run deeper than we can see from our perch in 3+1D spacetime.
As to physical objects, all things are composed of matter. Matter's other "face" is energy. Here's a question for you: Is energy "physical?" By this I mean energy in contradistinction to force, which seems to be a physical property of objects.
BTW, I don't know the answer to this question. I'm just wondering out loud here. I'd be interested in your view.
In any case, I don't see the basis for your remark that A-G and I are reductionists, because I think it's fair to say neither she nor I knows for a fact what things could possibly "reduce" to when there is still so much that we don't know. I think it's fair to say that we both tend to be open-minded and curious. FWIW.
I also think it's fair to say we both love scientific inquiry and the world of episteme more generally. And neither of us buys into the idea of the so-called "Cartesian split."
[Dear A-G, forgive me for speaking for you! If I've misrepresented your views, please do correct me!!!]