This matches my own perspective. I began suspecting long ago that part of the nature of consciousness is based on limits, or that limitation is the nature of consciousness, in that we have the whole, which is infinite and comprises all things, kind of simultaneously, and to be conscious, is the functional illusion of separation.
That lead me to consider whether space itself, a non-necessary product, was the core of consciousness. This probably makes no sense at first, but follows a handful of other base concepts. One being that all things are connected, if only by the very thing that separates them. We have no evidence for "nothing", at least none that I have ever seen. Nothing is a purely hypothetical concept. We only have somethings. So nothing is truly separated, but only appears so through the medium that buffers things, eg space/time. But if one starts fucking around with grasping the whole, it's the ultimate form destruction, because one would have to become the all, which is the closest possible thing to nothing.
It gets obnoxious, but eventually, all things are conscious in varying degrees. To exist, in any form, as a discrete set with unique tendencies, may be a degree of consciousness. This is partly why I think some form of consciousness may emerge in AI, perhaps because consciousness is a field, and it's fields all the way down...
Consciousness is limitations, or more so, manageable limitations.
Playing with this, for me, leads to time being more of a shape than flow, or process. In my view, all things are simultaneous -- but this is based upon an extremely controversial assumption of real, non-mathematical infinity, where time simply cannot exist, but only the experience of the shape of what we call time. There are no constraints for time to exist in real infinity. Also note that I am writing this while perpetually ill, and far from my best, therefore probably making the least persuasive case for an already messy argument. In some ways, it may resemble a brain damaged DeWitt. And even in the perennial fog of malaise, there are times when I can articulate this much more clearly. That time isn't now, but the comment compelled me.
Honestly, I would have to ponder this all for a while to say anything of value. I am very tired, and I figured better to reply now, than perhaps not at all. So I am kind of forcing myself to think about a subject that tends to only be clear in my best moments. The little I can say is no physical model works well for my view, at least none that I have found. Silly perhaps. I spend a lot of time thinking of the Planck length.
I apologize that I am entirely blank right now (midnight), and I tend to have rough mornings, so if I do not reply with something more substantial, pardon me.
Thank you for replying.