Don, on the definitional matter I agree. The term physical loses its meaning in lieu of its contradistinction, non-physical or immaterial. If we get rid of one, we get rid of the dichotomy altogether.

What we're left with though is that reality obeys the constraints we've codified through science, i.e. 'physical' theory.

Are there dimensions/powers/aspects left out by empirical theory? Nothing that rationality permits right now, except perhaps as an explanation for consciousness. What Dennet would call a skyhook. As far as explanations go, I think it's good to approach them within the confines of the orthodoxy, empirical science.

But I do think, along McGilchrist's view, that getting rid of the dichotomy, also allows us to avail ourselves of the 'materialist' worldview and attendant values at the social scale. Here, physicalism is more pernicious. Though short of veering into woowoo, we do need an overhaul of the description of ourselves.

If Christianity did one thing well, it's to see being, that is, creation, as divine. This was a psychological boon for us. And perhaps there's good neuroscientific bases as to why those views are a boon, and gaunt physicalism destructive to the 'soul'.