Steve Agnew,
"When you ask what the definition of definition is, ..."
I didn't ask for the definition of a definition! I asked for you to explain You get to explain what is a physics definition? Not only you don't acknowledge the necessity to adhere to the historical requirement to be met by a physics definition, but theoretical physicists in general appear to prefer to not be held to the past standard for a physics definition. Theoretical physics learned that the general permission to proceed forward without defining all previously existing properties allows for loose, guesses, that they can then proceed to seek sufficient professional theorist support for being unofficially, but riskily opposed, voted into physics equations. It has since with official blessing progressed into areas for which empirical evidence cannot confirm correctness.
" ...you do not seem to realize the circularity of definition."
The physics definition does not include circularity so far as I am aware except in the case of electric charge.
" ...definitions of physics."
Just provide them with non-circular definitions. And, do not offer loose explanations in place of physics definitions.
"Definition is a convenient word that is quite easy to look up as "...a statement expressing the essential nature of something."
I know how to look up the definition of a definition. Lets use your dictionary 'definition' of a definition:
What is the essential nature of mass?
And: What is the essential nature of temperature?
And: What is the essential nature of electric charge?
While I am asking clear questions:
What is the essential nature of force?
What is the essential nature of energy?
What is the essential nature of momentum?
What did Clausius discover when he wrote his equation for thermodynamic entropy?
What is the physical meaning of Boltzmann's constant?
"Does that help?"
Of course not. But clear direct answers to the above questions would help. I can ask more if that would help.
"What is the essential nature of something? Oh...a definition.'
Then you can answer those questions.
"Physics and consciousness both start with belief in axioms that are self-evident."
Physics begins with information about changes of acceleration of objects with respect to time. What axioms proceed our discovery of the existence of force and mass? The changes of acceleration of objects with respect to time can't be used to serve your purpose. They are evidence that is not self-evident.
"This avoids the circularity of trying to define definition, which is hopeless."
For physics it is not hopeless. Here is the explanation of a physics definition: A physics property is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A unit of a physics property is defined in terms of pre-existing units.
"These kinds of identities are a part of our reality and it is quite important to have a way of dealing with the beliefs that anchor consciousness."
First you must explain how we learn anything from the wildly mixed photons arriving from innumerable sources delivering very small increments of acceleration of who knows who's particles? That subconscious act is the anchor of consciousness. I have noticed that that challenge is skipped over. The consciousness that you refer to appears to anchor on popular beliefs. an example of a popular physics belief is that energy is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Yet physicists know that the Kelvin temperature scale is not a function of average molecular kinetic energy. Physicists know that each degree on the temperature scale is measured by the work performed during an adiabatic, quasi-static expansion of a Carnot cycle.
"It is not very helpful for predicting action to get swallowed up in the recursion of circular logic. It seems to me that that you are locked up in a recursion of circular reasoning when you ask for the definition of definition..."
No that is not what is occurring. I didn't ask for a definition of a definition. I asked for an explanation of what a physics definition is? If you have lost the historical understanding for what a physics definition is, then you are probably a modern day theorist? The difference is that holographic ideas and topological ideas and multi-universe ideas have gained theoretical popularity; while, empirical evidence is interpreted as "definitions of definitions".
Look! There are some physics definitions and there are some missing physics definitions. Even theoretical physics will never be right until physics properties are physics defined properties with none missing. There is, of course, the properties of empirical evidence from which we learn all there will ever be learned about the mechanical operation of the universe. They will always remain undefined because there are no physics properties pre-existing them.
James Putnam