If I understand the definition fully, it also includes; "becoming", "emergence". Thus I would add a: 3. What can it become? As far as the Universe being infinite and eternal, as well as energetic, I find that concept difficult to process, from what I know about current cosmology. It begs the question; Eternal Energy? It doesn't answer 1, 2, and 3 , does it? But does it have to be eternal? Moreover , eternity nullifies any concept of time. Eternity is timeless and permittive but is not energetic , but rather static. And is that not contrary to mainstream science, which gives a detailed account of the origins of this (our) universe. If we assume a prior state of the universe, are we not talking about a universe within a universe? Perhaps a multiverse? If we can argue for such a condition, then of course , everything else becomes relatively simple, but then we are not speaking of origins of the "Wholeness" itself anymore. What aspect of the grand unified eternal wholeness was causal to the eventual emergence of our current (geometrically bounded) universe? It was energetic? Ok, why and how? My question is if there is a natural mathematical restriction against something becoming from nothing? Are we not constantly creating something (thoughts) from nothing? I find that an intriguing question. And when we use our own subjective universe (our brain) and apply energy to our thoughts, they often become reality, no? Bohm called it "insight intelligence". A logical field, which mathematically converts abstract potential into a hierarchy of abstract orderings, into abstract patterns, into constructs, the process of which in itself is abstractly energetically dynamic, into energy. If we consider the abstract complexity of the physical nature of our universe today. Did any of it exist before the BB? Thus what we see today was once nothing, according to Lawrence Krauss. (today an empty lot, tomorrow a highrise). Something emerging from Nothing. It sounds weird, but is it?