Hello Andre,

You wrote, "A space - time continuum that exists of apparently material objects has been found to consist of empty space filled with energy probabilities."

Yes, nearly all of space is empty. Even the atom. If an atom were blown up to the size of the huge St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of salt and the electrons whirling around it would be out at the edges of the building, the size of specs of dust. The rest is empty space.

But we know space is full of neutrinos and photons and gravitons and dark matter and dark energy and a host of other things. But as to where the information is that organizes the universe and gives consciousness a position, it isn't in space-time. The materialists are trying to find a place for it in space-time by invoking mysteries like the zero-point field, but they have no foundation.

The better explanation is that the organizing principle in the universe is consciousness, and it's outside of the material realm. The probability waves you alluded to don't exist; they aren't energy. They're information, and they're outside the material realm.

Let me go back to the folded sheets of paper and the void or vacuum. Inflationary cosmology suggests that at the "beginning" of the universe, all of the universe was in a point with no dimensions, so it was infinitely smaller than an atom. In other words, it had 0 space and 0 time. Sound familiar?

Something happened to cause the universe to expand its fabric. The "big bang" wasn't like an explosion in a used-car lot that resulted in a crater with no cars around it and bumpers, hoods, windshields, and tires strewn out hundreds of feet in every direction. If that were the big bang, you'd see an area of the universe where there was nothing. That's where the bang would have been.

Instead, the universe was encapsulated in that tiny dot with no dimensions. Don't ask what was outside that dot. The inflationary cosmologists can't explain that and don't care. Then at the moment of the big bang, it began to expand, like a balloon being blown up. In other words, the size of the universe was expanding, from a point with no dimensions to a space billions of light years across.

We know that because Edwin Hubble, in 1924, discovered that all the other galaxies are speeding away from us at tremendous speeds. It's as though the earth were the center of the big bang. But that's not it. It's like the universe is a loaf of poppy seed bread and all the galaxies are poppy seeds. As the loaf expands, all the poppy seeds get further and further apart from each other, so it seems like they're all speeding away from each other. Actually, the universe is just getting bigger.

Now, doesn't that sound a whole lot like the enfolded implicate order that unfolds into the explicate order. In other words, when we close our eyes and relax, the entire universe enfolds back into that point with no dimensions that it was before the big bang. When we open our eyes, the universe expands back into what we experience.

But what we experience is evolving. It changes. The single point before the big bang doesn't exist anymore because if a conscious being could have observed it, it would have just been still a single point. Today, the single point we collapse the universe into is an enfolding of the universe as it is today, with Peoria, Illinois, George Bush, and squirrels in it. But it still collapses back into that point.

The information that makes the universe what it is is in that point. It's the same point today as it was before the big bang, but the information in it is different. So when we open our eyes and look at the universe today, we see all of its expanse.

So that's where the information is that organizes us into who we are. And it is consciousness that holds that information and gives it space-time in which to display all of its sensual properties.

Andre, you also wrote this:

"Yet even the scientists are still skeptical of anything which cannot be compartmentalized. They would like to quantize consciousness itself."

The materialists want to locate consciousness in the brain, but can't find it. That's the problem with beginning science with the conclusion and insisting it's true rather than starting with the data and going where it leads. If you're sure there are no white crows, then when someone shows you a white crow you're going to insist it was bleached or painted or something--you'll ignore the data and find some explanation, regardless of how outlandish.

The materialists can't even define what a subjective experience is. They're invoking mysteries to explain mysteries by looking to microtubules and quantum effects. But in science, no mystery should be used to explain another mystery. It's just bad science.

Instead of starting with the premise that consciousness is in the brain, they should start with the subjective experience and let it lead where it will. I have no recepters to receive signals to the brain when I remote view. I just close my eyes and images of things thousands of miles away come to me. When I sketch what I see, my sketches are accurate. That has to be explained in understanding consciousness, but the neuroscientists are ignoring that. Bad science.

Craig