General relativity predicts a singularity at the center of every black hole. I've given my opinion elsewhere that the universe IS a black hole. So how do we reconcile what physics predicts with what we see as a large, hugely expansive universe?

If we assume that space does not exist unless we can measure it, then the existence of distance between two objects is dependent on an interaction of some sort between them. Space becomes an artifact of measurement rather than a thing existing separately.

All people on earth are made up of a cloud of matter that was once a part of the Earth. The stuff making up our bodies is a subset of the stuff that makes up the Earth. When we interact, again only a subset of our substance in involved in that interaction. I suggest that space results from the interaction of only a subset of the stuff of larger objects. Something holds most matter apart. Something fractures it.

So, in some sense, the universe is a singularity just as GR predicts. But because we are a subset of the matter that makes up that singularity, we perceive distance, space and time. Just like complex numbers, maybe the reality that we perceive can be called the "Real" component of the universe, and the singularity can be called the "Imaginary" component. One might even reverse the terms for the sake of semantics. But just as in many sciences, to get the correct results from our calculations we have to take into account both components. Otherwise we get the wrong answers.

Of course I'm using complex numbers as an analogy. It's kindof abstract. Can we use this imaginary component for some practical purpose, like FTL travel, or linking of a universal consciousness? I dunno, it probably isn't even correct. And it's hard to say what is correct. I mean, it's even possible that space DOES exist in the absence of matter! But how can we know for sure?