Anything born out of (may or may not be within) the universe. — Copernicus

That sounds like general monism to me, rather than physicalism in particular.

both fall in the same category.

it also has non-physical characteristics
— Patterner

If they stemmed from physical properties, then they're also physical properties, regardless of characteristics. — Copernicus

That is not how physical is defined.
If something does not have physical characteristics, then it is not physical.
Just as if something does not have solid characteristics, then it is not a solid.
Just as, in chemistry, if something does not have carbon in it, then it is not organic.
If something does not have wood in it, then it is not wooden.
If something does not have metal in it, then it is not metalic.

Philosophy IS propositional conclusions without empirical evidence. — Copernicus

I think most serious philosophers work very hard to maintain consistency with empirical evidence. Otherwise it would be just like pure mathematics, where you make up axioms with complete disregard for empirical evidence.

I think this is an undisputed issue and needs no further argument.

That is not how physical is defined. — Patterner

Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word.

But I've explained what I mean by "physical".

Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word. — Copernicus

I agree. Because if something does not have physical properties, then it is not physical.