Path to enlightenment?

It is believed vacuum energy may be responsible for the expansion of space itself and the reason why the gravitational pull is not enough to bring galaxy´s together again in a big crunch...it not necessarily concerns black holes...in the case I was speaking on the event horizon of our local universe, not the black holes event horizon...I was emphasising why we don´t see any galaxy´s converging presently and what may be happening beyond what we can see, thus the event horizon needed in the picture...

..In that sense we would have a big crunch not of matter but of space and pure energy themselves...from which would emerge a new big bang on the other side of the hole... (ours)

Again mind that the big crunch only would take place aeons after (an infinity of time) galaxy´s collapsing into energy and very very far away from our visual limit event horizon and the place where they did collapse...so we are speaking on two different event horizons...

...its not like they do collapse into a black hole while being galaxy´s or stars...although some (stars) are unfortunate enough to get to close on some of the several billions out there...

The "apple/donut" imagery I gave you regards the flow of space matter and energy on one side, some pushed away expanding galaxy´s, and on the other, by the same direction flow after curving space, the converging of that very same space, from the edges to the centre, pulled together with the "left overs" of the ancient galaxy´s, the remaining energy...this would take aeons and "gazillions" of miles in between...and thus several event horizons not concerning directly nor the big bang nor the crunch but only what you/someone can see at several different and fairly sparse observation points...hope it comes up more clear now !

I'm just looking at a smaller scale than you, I think.
I think it all works the same no matter which layer you choose to look at.

Maybe I can describe my model a little better.
Say the info of my individual existence looks like a bubble with a sort of axis, like your apple.
I exist along any point of that axis, with the information of the bubble converging to that point.
At the event horizon of my birth, the point looks like the bottom of a tomato.
As I move along the axis, the information bubble distorts inward to converge at the present point of existence, until I reach the event horizon of death, which again looks like the bottom of a tomato.
The convergence of all possibilities accounts for the distortion on each side of the point of existence.
I can adapt this model to the universe, it requires an observer.
The problem remains the event horizon, how does this affect the observer, the information bubble?
Hope this doesn't sound too crazy

...now if you really want to mess things up a bit, bring all that together and think of it as "programming" without a "programmer", a matrix like scenario...a pure mathematical 2 dimensional huge page of binary code...zeros and ones...(all other dimensions are simulations themselves, or should I say emulations ?...) which in its inter relative relations of code at several layers, bring up the functions and algorithms that make what we see seem real...the "Law" itself literally made "thing"...from the pureness of the Metaphysical into the Physical without "macula"...a perfect and yet extremely simple system !

...more then that a system which through "us" (each bit of info or each smaller system a set of bits) acknowledges and knows itself from several different perspectives and through several diferent perspective like algorithms...

...everything is "observing" everything...

That's where it get really tricky indeed.
My model is flawed, given it is linear within 3 dimensions.
It really needs to be multi-dimensional, and the axis actually distorts.
The mistake I keep making is trying to conceptualize from outside the observer, rather than just looking outward from the point of observation.

no worries wayne...no one absolutely no one in this earth gets the entire picture right...we all just have hunches and partial insights and we all have our own way of going on about what we perceive...keep at it...

I think, with this model, at near light speed you would see the distortion.
At light speed it would all stop, and you could, theoretically step outside the matrix and re-enter at any other point.
Assuming light speed as constant.

At such light its no more true that the Physical becomes/it is metaphysical then it is true that the metaphysical is is/becomes physical...it all depends on the starting point that we chose to pick first...

Law, Relation or Function are the true nature of matter...

I would n indulge in "steeping" out literally, once "it" is everything there is...but I would be inclined to agree that we would be everywhere simultaneously...

...now considering what you said think on steeping out of one matrix as steeping out from one layer and into another higher layer...but not ever really truly steeping out of the entire "thing"...

It becomes a bit more interesting than time travel when you do that.
Considering the realms of possibility that must exist out side our own realm of possibility. Whooooa whatta rush

Speaking of possibility, considering all the possible combinations to form a human being, a random system would eventually create a duplicate?
A system programmed to exhaust all possibilities before creating a duplicate, would imply what? Intelligence?

...given enough time such system would be able to duplicate anything being the odds bigger the less complexity it requires...of course random is not intelligence although it can bring about intelligence...
But I am not sure what random deeply means nor am I sure anybody can quite explain it in a satisfactory manner...you see I believe in cause and effect and random seems to mean exactly the opposite of that...now mind that I am not defending any ID such like principle...what I am saying is that random works the way it works but might not quite mean what we think it means...Is it random really random ? or is it random only apparently random ? exhausting all possibility´s and combinations in a random like algorithm might not be entirely random at all...is it then design after all ? No, because there is no fixed purpose in a continued process who will eventually run out all possible combinations given enough time, even if through a completely deterministic process...

An invitation to deep reflection from Daniel Dennet, which from my point of view, properly demonstrates the importance of Philosophy to conveniently counter the argument of a personnel God from an old fox like William Lane Craig ...

So then, even the interactive layers of information model, is just one more focal point of a greater realm of possibility. A random organization of information, rendered structure by the observer.

Therefore, rather than a question of cause, the possibility for a greater level of consciousness exist, therefore a greater level of consciousness must exist.

I would rather assert that while is certainly possible that a greater level of consciousness exists that level cannot report or be increasingly extended to the whole of reality...and my argument for that it is very close to the imagery that the Nirvana invokes in Buddhism. That is that if we indulge in the idea of a final set of all sets, its "resolution" as a final set is ultimately non "conflictive", therefore not "alive" or conscious...in a milder explanation what I am arguing, is that such set would imply that none of the immediately lower layer opposing "forces" (sets) would be implied in a final set or even"recognise" each other in a final set of all sets...they would ultimately be transcendent to each other, and thus could not be comported in such set...
( on a deeper conceptual level a set is by definition the resolution of an apparent conflict)

Actually this "resolution" of "conflict", the "Devir", is precisely in my humble understanding what renders the Universe eternal while in motion...it closes the loop upon itself...the unmoved mover is the final set on which all of them seem to move...that at best is a mathematical very loose definition of "god" closer to the Einstein experience then any kind of a naive description of a personnel God...

Mind that such assertion does not fall on the illogical fallacy that the Universe created itself but rather asserts that the Whole of reality ultimately is eternal...

Not sure why so many people have a problem with the idea that the universe itself could be uncreated. When people usually talk about the universe they generally think of the visible universe which is less than 1% of the total make up of the universe. 99% of the universe is pretty much nothing. Why such an imbalance if the universe is significant? What we are, our bodies, the planet and all the stars are really nothing more than a residue of some occurrence that is probably insignificant in itself. The only difference is we are beings who like to think we are in some way special and unique when we might not be at all.

This final set would then include a law of polarity, or a sort of information gravity, serving as cause to the subsequent organization?

Well by definition a final set includes all functions and laws you can rationally observe...now mind that just as physics is a deeper layer to explain chemistry, as chemistry of biology, as a sort of, lets say, deeper language who further develops what is it that you are ultimately talking about, also binary code might be assumed to be a final abstract "mathematical" layer holder concerning the very abstract concept of information for the definition of lower layer concepts like "force" or "matter" "energy" "space" or "time" and the processes by which they interact physically speaking, that is, the functions they assume in the system viewed by certain levels of perspective...

From where I stand it is my belief that Information does the job in the simplest and onto the smallest form, but that of course is a matter of belief since after all it is a metaphysical claim and clearly lies beyond any kind of physical proof...

Now we further can ask if we do have any good reason onto the awkward idea that such may in fact be the case ?
And I would feel obliged to reply from my standing point yes we do ! If not what is for instance the best description of a three-dimensional virtual word in a game ? is it the "physical" one based on an intuition of our senses concerning the virtual space itself, or is it Information as the most abstract form of description?