The whole is boundless

[Age]

Just for the sake of visualization purposes, imagine that the blue bubble depicted below...



...somehow not only metaphorically represents the absolute sum total of all life, mind, and matter in however many universes might exist (if indeed there are more than just this one),...

...but also represents all possible transcendent (or alternate) dimensions of reality (i.e., heavens, hells, nirvanas, bardos, etc., etc., - if such exist).

In which case, could that blue bubble depicted above represent the "whole" of which you speak?
_______

No, the whole is the blue part plus the black part that surrounds the blue part.

Good answer, bahman, for if you are including the black part that surrounds the blue part, then the "whole" is indeed boundless, for the black part represents the infinite (boundless) nothingness that is forever making room for the blue part (the part that we call "reality").

But when are you ever going to comprehend and understand "seeds" that you own imagination here of what is so-called 'reality' and what is so-called 'not reality' is of your own making up, and creating, and is not based on any actual proof here?

See, what you perceive as 'reality', and which you have illustrated here, is not necessarily true, right, accurate, nor correct, at all.

Or do you really believe that your illustration is actually true and right?

If yes, then please provide absolutely anything, which backs up and supports this belief of yours here.

Now, you speak as though the Universe/the whole is made up some 'real part' relatively blue in your own illustration, and some 'unreal, or nothingness, part' and the two are somehow separate, and/or separated by some 'thing'.

Which, obviously, is just too absurd, too nonsensical, and too illogical. Unless, of course, you have the ability to explain and/or demonstrate, otherwise.

We will wait, to see.

Indeed, the blue part (again, what we call "reality")

Who is the 'we' here "seeds"?

you, and who else?

No one that I know of calls the so-called 'blue part' 'reality' at all.

is not only bounded by the black part, but, by reason of the fact that even though the substance from which reality is created, might actually be infinite - in and of itself,...

...nevertheless, whatever it (the blue part) comprises will always be contained within (forever bounded/surrounded/subsumed) by the black part, which, in a certain sense, can be thought of as being just as "real" as the blue part,...

What are you on about?

What even made you begin to even think or image that there was some boundary, at where you have drawn a circle around some so-called 'blue part', let alone informing us of why you would have even being to presume or believe such a thing?

...thus, making it an integral (and existing) aspect of what you are calling the "whole" (which is sometimes called the "ALL-THAT-IS").
_______

Of course 'Everything', the Universe, the whole, totality, all-there-is/all-that-is is 'unbounded'.

There is absolutely no other option. Never was, never is, and never could be.

When will this 'sink in', as some might say here, and be comprehended and understood, exactly and fully?

[Age]

Bravo! You got the point. I only need to mention that the black part in the picture is not nothingness. It is at least spacetime. No matter may exist in the black part but that is something.

No, bahman, the black part in the image does not represent the classic definition of "spacetime."

No, the term "spacetime" is associated with the not-so-empty vacuum of space that is loosely represented by this image...

Here, we can clearly see another example of when people, back then, would use words and phrases without absolutely any idea what the 'thing' was that those words or phrases were meant to be referring to.

There is no 'separated area' of the Universe, as depicted above, nor below, where one part/area of the Universe is empty and another part/area is not-so-empty.

These people, back then, really could not get out of the heads the presumption nor belief that the Universe began, and/or is expanding. Just like, back then, when people really could not get out of the heads the presumption nor belief that the sun revolves around earth, or, back then, when people really presumed and/or believed that the earth was flat.

The word Universe means and/or refers to 'the whole'. Which, for all intents and purposes, is, literally, the exact same Thing here.

...which depicts the vacuum of space as consisting of quantum fields from which sub-atomic particles are derived.

In other words, the term "spacetime" represents the "non-local" underpinning of the material universe that binds the phenomenal features of the universe together into what the blue (and closed) bubble in this image...



...actually represents,...

...while the black part of that image represents "absolute nothingness"...

Just look at how Truly nonsensical and illogical this image and representation is.

So, according to this depiction there are things flying, or moving, around, and for some unknown reason they all just stop at some particular place/point in the Universe, and then 'bounce back'.

Just out of curiosity "seeds" what exactly is the 'thing' that is stopping the moving things from expanding outwards, especially considering you also claim that the 'black' or 'outside part' is an 'absolute nothingness', which is allowing the 'blue' or 'inner part' to expand so-called 'outwards'?

I suggest that if you ever want to be taken seriously here, then you start clarifying and explaining the absolute inconsistencies and contradictions in your claims, images, and depictions here

(as in no quantum fields nor anything else from which so-called "reality" can be derived)

...and has nothing to do with what we call "spacetime."

"Spacetime" is a term that can be loosely likened to an invisible foundational "fabric" that, again, not only binds the bubble of the universe together into one seamless and autonomous whole unto itself, but is bendable and curvable by phenomena containing mass.
_______

Once again, we see here another prime example of one saying just about absolutely anything, in the hope that it will somehow back up and support what they are currently presuming or believing to be true.

[Age]

Bravo! You got the point. I only need to mention that the black part in the picture is not nothingness. It is at least spacetime. No matter may exist in the black part but that is something.

No, bahman, the black part in the image does not represent the classic definition of "spacetime."

No, the term "spacetime" is associated with the not-so-empty vacuum of space that is loosely represented by this image...



...which depicts the vacuum of space as consisting of quantum fields from which sub-atomic particles are derived.

In other words, the term "spacetime" represents the "non-local" underpinning of the material universe that binds the phenomenal features of the universe together into what the blue (and closed) bubble in this image...



...actually represents,...

...while the black part of that image represents "absolute nothingness"...

(as in no quantum fields nor anything else from which so-called "reality" can be derived)

...and has nothing to do with what we call "spacetime."

"Spacetime" is a term that can be loosely likened to an invisible foundational "fabric" that, again, not only binds the bubble of the universe together into one seamless and autonomous whole unto itself, but is bendable and curvable by phenomena containing mass.
_______

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

What does the word 'space' even mean or refer to, to you, exactly, "bahman"?

[Age]

Actuality - the universe beyond the perception of a mind, is infinite in each of the physical dimensions, time, space, and scale.

Actually, the Mind, Itself, is what knows the Universe is infinite, and eternal. And, it is only the human brain that thinks, assumes, and/or believes that the Universe is not infinite and not eternal.

[Age]

_______



_______

Once again here we see another image, which, literally, says nor explains absolutely nothing at all here.

The only thing this image shows and reveals is what the one here known as "seeds", once, believed was true.

[seeds]

...Now, you speak as though the Universe/the whole is made up some 'real part' relatively blue in your own illustration, and some 'unreal, or nothingness, part' and the two are somehow separate, and/or separated by some 'thing'.

Which, obviously, is just too absurd, too nonsensical, and too illogical. Unless, of course, you have the ability to explain and/or demonstrate, otherwise.

We will wait, to see.

Sorry Age, I would try to explain it to you, but I'm afraid I don't speak "Bonehead" (which clearly is your native tongue).

Anyway, I see that you're still placing threads in the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and mercilessly smothering them beneath fevered evacuations of your mental bowels.

If only someone (a moderator, perhaps) would invent some kind of Mental Imodium® to help you with y̶o̶u̶r̶ our problem.
_______

[Age]

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

What can be clearly seen here is just how often, and how much, these ones, back then, missed.

The 'whole', literally, means ALL and/or Everything, and not just a part of, or some things, as you are only showing and talking about here.

Also, the only one you are fooling and deceiving here with your continual use of the 'reality' word "seeds" is you, "yourself".

Furthermore, why only talk about a very small, narrowed, and limited 'diameter' of the whole?

If you look at the thread title here it talks about 'the whole' and not an imagined fraction, of 'the whole'.

Now, of course, the human being created 'little bubble' of 'the whole Reality', is bounded and limited. But 'it' is and was only being bounded and limited by your very small, very limited, and very bounded ability to look at, and see, things for how and what they really are.

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...

Which is all only a part of a limited and bounded figment of an imagination, of a preconceived bounded and limited universe.

...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

you seem to keep forgetting that it only a visual representation of only what you are 'currently' obviously believing is true.

Which, as we all already know here, may well be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. But which you seem to keep forgetting here "seeds".

The way you try to argue is like absolutely anyone could draw and/or provide 'an image' here, and then say that 'this' is what 'reality' is.

Which, as can be clearly seen, would be taking 'the absurd' to its absolute extreme.

Now, you are absolutely free to think, presume, or believe that your own made up illustration, image, and depiction here is the absolute truth, but, I will suggest, that if you want absolutely anyone else to agree with and accept this claim of yours here, then you start providing the actual proof for having and holding such, what appears to me Truly illogical and nonsensical belief.

Are you at all able to provide just absolutely any thing, which could back up and support your presumption or belief here?

if yes, then will you provide it?

If no, then why not?

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

Here we can see how these people, back then, just could not let go of their currently held beliefs.

See, this one believes, so much, that the Universe began, that it cannot help "itself" from using words like, 'the initial expansion'. As though it has already been proven that there was some sort of 'initial expansion' of Everything.

This way of, nuanced, speaking could been seen and heard, consistently, throughout the speeches and writings, back in the days when this was being written.

So-called "scientists" who believed that the Universe began would also continually say and use expressions like, 'In the early stages of the Universe's expansion', but when questioned and/or challenged they would say things like, 'We do not know if the Universe began. This is still open for discussion'.

But what the actually Truth is/was could be clearly seen within their words. They, literally, believed that the Universe began, and/or is expanding.

Exactly like these ones here known as "seeds" and "will bouwman" do.

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Call them, or that one, whatever you like "seeds". It is your own illustration and depiction, only.

It is obviously not an Accurate, Correct, nor even close to being a True depiction of the True Reality of all-there-is.

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

See how this one cannot get past its own made up current belief.

There is no 'bubble' inside of something else here.

There is no 'expansion' of one thing into another thing.

The Universe/the whole is ALL-THERE-IS. So, what this essentially and fundamentally means if there is, for example, areas of what is called 'absolute nothingness', then these areas, and what they are composed of are part of the whole/Universe.

Again, the Universe/the whole is infinite and eternal, and if this could be refuted, then it has not, yet.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Now, this one is doing what a seemingly, lot of adults started doing, in the days when this was being written, that is; start talking about many or some so-called 'other universes', in order to try to back up and support their belief that the Universe, Itself, began, and/or is expanding.

Which, again, is just another prime example of how these people, back then, would say just about anything, in the hope that it would somehow back up and support their 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions.

[Age]

...Now, you speak as though the Universe/the whole is made up some 'real part' relatively blue in your own illustration, and some 'unreal, or nothingness, part' and the two are somehow separate, and/or separated by some 'thing'.

Which, obviously, is just too absurd, too nonsensical, and too illogical. Unless, of course, you have the ability to explain and/or demonstrate, otherwise.

We will wait, to see.

Sorry Age, I would try to explain it to you, but I'm afraid I don't speak "Bonehead" (which clearly is your native tongue).

Once more here we can clearly see how when one believes some thing is true, but which actually has absolutely nothing at all which backs up, supports, and proves what it believes is true, is true, then it will resort to trying to 'attack the speaker/writer instead of attacking the argument'.

Anyway, I see that you're still placing threads in the bottom of your custom-made thunder pot...



...and mercilessly smothering them beneath fevered evacuations of your mental bowels.

If only someone (a moderator, perhaps) would invent some kind of Mental Emodium® to help you with y̶o̶u̶r̶ our problem.
_______

Once again another attempted attack of the speaker/writer, and not on what was actually produced and shown here.

Also, once again, what can be clearly seen here is this one believing that the actual 'image', which it is only making up inside of 'that head', and then producing for others to look at and see, is what is actually the truth is.

Look "seeds", only what you would call speaking, "bonehead", would one say and claim that the whole/Universe, Itself, sits within some ever 'expandable bubble', and which popped into Existence from 'absolutely nothing' at all. Or, that this magical 'expanding bubble' popped into Existence from 'infinitesimal singularity', without ever considering that actually the word 'whole' is referring to those things, as well.

"seeds" do you have absolutely anything at all, which you could refer absolutely any one to, which would back up and support your views here?

Obviously, if you do not, then what you are speaking and claiming here could be considered the work of a Truly delusional person.

There is, obviously, not a shred of scientific literature that actually backs up and supports this ones views, beliefs, and/or claims here. As this one will prove absolutely True by not providing anything at all here.

[Age]

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Well, spacetime is fundamental and it is boundless. You can show that time cannot begin to exist. I showed this here.

These human beings, back then, really could not comprehend and understand that 'they' could all so-called 'show' just about absolutely any particular 'thing'. But that what they are showing does not necessarily have to have any bearing at all on the actual Truth of things, but only what they were 'currently' believing was true, alone, and only.

And, when they were believing that what they were showing was backing up and supporting what they were 'currently' believing was true, then there was 'no stopping them', as some might say here.

"bahman" and "seeds" were only two of many prime examples here.

Space is another part of the spacetime manifold therefore space cannot begin to exist as well. Spacetime simply existed since the beginning of time.

This one here, currently, believes that 'space' cannot begin to exist, like 'time' cannot begin to exist, but, very contradictory, 'space' began, when 'time' began. So, 'go figure', as some might say.

Now you can fill up the spacetime with stuff.

Where did all of this so-called 'stuff' come from, exactly?

If all that exists is within the limited area called bubble then the rest of spacetime is empty. The area of spacetime that is empty is the black area in your picture.

Do you now think or believe that 'that image' is even remotely close to what the actual Truth is, exactly?

[Age]

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.

So, where is 'it', and what is 'it' made up, exactly, which is the so-called 'separation' between what is, supposedly, not 'a void', and, what is, supposedly, 'a void'?

Or, another way of putting this is, 'What is the thing that stops what is in the so-called 'non void' from entering the so-called 'void', exactly?

In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

Talk about speaking from 'beyond a joke'.

When has 'the whole' ever been defined as being so-called 'bound by void'?

Here is another prime example 'religion' at work and at play here. That is; a "scientist" told me something so it must be true. And, for proof of this just look in 'the book'. The words there told me that 'it' is true, and 'the book' always tells 'the truth'.

The Universe did not begin, and is not expanding.

As the irrefutable proof shows, and reveals. Exactly like, the sun does not revolve around earth, and the earth is not flat. AS the irrefutable proof shows, and reveals.

But some are just naturally slower to catch on, and thus keep up.

[Age]

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.
In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

What is the void? Nothing?

Yes. Because nothing can be part of the whole. The whole is everything.

Once again, another example of saying just about anything, in the hope that it will back up and support a 'currently' held belief.

Also, why is it absolutely impossible for you, "sculptor", for the Everything to be made up of areas of nothing?

[Age]

What is the void? Nothing?

Yes. Because nothing can be part of the whole. The whole is everything.

But nothing means the absence of anything including spacetime!

And, what, exactly, is 'spacetime' to you, "bahman"?

What are the actual 'things' that 'spacetime' is, supposedly, made up of and/or created from, exactly?

[Age]

That is what I said, yes.

So you think that the universe is embedded within the void?

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

you cannot 'bound' by nor in a void also, since a voice cannot be a bound, neither.

[Age]

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

So, the universe is surrounded by void?

I think we are now going round in circles.

See above.

Once more what is clearly seen here, again, when one is unable to back up and support their claims, then they resort to trying anything, and/or try to say just about anything, in the hope that this will work in some way in backing up and support their 'currently' held onto belief and/or claim.

'See above' is about one the weakest forms of 'arguing' and/or 'fighting' for 'a position' held, which could have been used.

When any other reader here 'looks above', "sculptor", all you have more or less said is, the Universe, and/or the whole, is surrounded by a 'void', which is actually not even able to 'embed' within it any thing.

[Age]

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Well, spacetime is fundamental and it is boundless.

If it is possible that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness as I put-forth in my "Burning Bush" thread, then the "spacetime" aspect of this universe is "bounded" in the same way that your own mind is bounded.

Talk about utter made up nonsense, based on absolutely nothing more than a pre-existing belief, which this one is very, very desperately trying to prove true here.

1. It is not possible for visible matter to be a non visible thing, like the Mind is.

2. What could even possibly be a 'higher consciousness', which has 'its' own presupposed 'mind', which, supposedly, the whole physical Universe, itself, is?

3. What is, supposedly, the so-called 'spacetime' aspect of 'this' universe, to you, "seeds"? (A god-like, to some, figure came up with and used the term or phrase 'spacetime' and then others use the same one, while thinking or believing that they know what they are talking about.

4. you human beings do not have your so-called 'own mind'.

5. There is only One Mind and It could never ever be bounded by absolutely any thing.

In other words, both are bounded by reason of the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

Is this kind of 'stuff' what you really believe is true "seeds"?

You can show that time cannot begin to exist. I showed this here.

And I agree with you that time did not begin to exist at the moment of the alleged Big Bang.

As mentioned earlier, I am simply pointing out what the hardcore materialists seem to believe.

Literally, who really cares what some human being believes is true?

Where, and what, is the actual irrefutable proof of what you human beings say and claim here?

If you do not yet have any, then I will, once again, suggest not sharing your claims and beliefs here until you do.

Otherwise, it could be argued, that you are just wasting peoples 'time' and 'energy' here.

Furthermore, in this post here - https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewto ... 78#p390978 - I too tried to make it clear that time had no "beginning."

1. Just define what the word 'time' means, and/or refers to, to you, exactly, and then provide the actual proof why you claim that 'that thing', supposedly had no beginning.

2. How much simpler and easy could things get here, in a philosophy forum?

However, if you think about it, there is a mystery as to what speed time would be moving if there were no minds and clocks to sense and measure its passing.

Again, these people claim to know 'things', but then also still say and claim there are 'things' that are 'mysteries', to them, regarding the exact same 'thing', which they claim to 'know'.

Talk about hypocrisy, inconsistency, and contradiction in the extreme.

Space is another part of the spacetime manifold therefore space cannot begin to exist as well.

Your own mind is like a separate dimension of reality (a "parallel universe," if you will) that contains its own autonomous spatial arena in which the phenomenal features of your thoughts and dreams exist and play-out.

Clearly, your mind had a beginning.

Well, I suggest that the same applies to the universe, which is simply the mind of a higher Being who also seems to have had a beginning just like us.

Which would, therefore, logically', and I use that word 'very loosely' here, as some might say, that that so alleged 'higher being' also has 'higher' or 'equally as high' 'beings' as it, ad infinitum, 'all the way up, or down, to the turtles', again as some might say and point out here.

Indeed, I pointed that out in the following excerpt from an alternate thread...

"...You need to realize that every time you close your eyes to think or dream, you are peering into what appears to be an infinite "spatial arena" (your mind) that is filled with billions of holographic-like manifestations of "reality"...

Were you not yet aware "seeds" that not everyone looks at, and sees, things the same way 'you obviously do'?

Not all people see so-called 'holographic-like manifestations' of 'reality' nor even of any thing.

Some people when the eyes on the body are closed think or dream in other ways.

Just like not every one learns, and/nor understand, things 'the way' that 'you do', "seeds".

...all of which, if projected back in time, will converge and disappear into a "single dimensionless point" that represents the moment when your mind (and "I Am-ness") first came into existence.

Why do you think or believe that 'this belief' of 'yours' "seeds" that absolutely EVERY thing 'came into existence', exists?

And, why do you think, believe, or imagine 'you' cannot 'shake it', nor get 'rid of it', "seeds"?

Answer these clarifying questions, properly and Correctly, then you will be, at least, one step closer of being able to learn, and understand, what the actual Truth is here, exactly.

And the point is that I suggest we are seeing something similar to that when we project the holographic-like features of the universe back in time...

Spacetime simply existed since the beginning of time.

What?

Be careful how you word things, because I thought we both agreed that time had no "beginning."

Trying to follow, and comprehend and understand, what "bahman" continually changes its claims to is like trying to understand your own claims and beliefs here, when you will not present absolutely any thing at all, which could somehow just back up and support your beliefs and claims.

Now you can fill up the spacetime with stuff. If all that exists is within the limited area called bubble then the rest of spacetime is empty. The area of spacetime that is empty is the black area in your picture.

Again, you are confusing "spacetime," also known as the "fabric of spacetime"...

(which can not only be thought of as a "fabric" from which the phenomenal features of the universe, along with the interstitial areas of empty space between those features are woven, but also as what binds the bubble of the universe together into one cohesive whole unto itself)

...again, you are confusing that with "absolute nothingness" (or "void," as mentioned by Sculptor).

They are not the same.

Can't you just be happy knowing that you are correct in asserting that the ultimate "whole" (or the "ALL-THAT-IS") is indeed "boundless"?
_______