TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post.
I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions.
That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into.
In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary.
I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries.
And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model.
A easy example of what I'm talking about is:
As you we move our universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. our origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point we are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points we might see duplication or replication.
Earth2, not perfect perhaps it might take infinite regression to find that one... but similarities on a very weird level.
We are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundary of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstein kicks ass.
Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the
universe you see what visually represents the same picture as a Neural network. See Chandra X Ray observatory:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html
If you think about it. One day, we'll be able to map enough of the sky to see that this observation does have some evidence backing it up. Currently we don't.
But the theory is sound at the moment. As the ideas are based in current known scientific models. I'm sure we'll refine them over the years. But the basic abstract concepts aught to not change much.
If they do, that will be an eye opener.