I see some relations here with Penrose's theory of consciousness and with monistic religions like Hinduism. And you've got some fancy diagrams. A couple of thoughts:

Is there still much of a contrast between the abstract field in which you say matter is embedded, namely consciousness, and particles themselves when matter is no longer thought of as being as hard as billiard balls? Matter is already vibrational, on string theory. So is quantized space compatible with the standard model of particles?

More importantly, I think, is this explanation of how consciousness relates to matter compatible with neurology, with the tight relations that have been established between states of consciousness and the brain? You speak of "probability" and of "blending" that connects consciousness and the brain. It seems a little sketchy, though, and Occam's razor might have to kick in here, no?

If there's an idea of each spatial event that's registered in background consciousness, why aren't we omniscient? Because our microtubules restrict our mental contents based on probability, you say. But isn't the materialistic explanation simpler, that we don't know everything because consciousness is embodied and thus limited in its experiences? I know that qualia become mysterious on this kind of explanation, but materialism also makes sense of the apparent limits of consciousness.