# Is all matter driven by/made of consciousness? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092 "2014-04-01T15:59:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/141 "2014-04-06T05:13:55Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And also, while particles that travel faster than light are unknown at this moment is “information” is not subject to that limit. > > As an example, if, from the earth, you take a laser pointer and flick it across the surface of the moon (please do not do this in case there are airplanes in the path) the beam will cross the moon at faster than the speed of light. The photons going there will not but the actual beam is hitting the surface will. This is not exactly related but the easiest to explain example I can think of right now. [Not true.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34653/is-it-possible-to-transfer-classical-bits-of-information-faster-than-light-speed) ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/142 "2014-04-06T05:20:21Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > [Not true.](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34653/is-it-possible-to-transfer-classical-bits-of-information-faster-than-light-speed) Note how I said the photons are not traveling faster than light…that is what that link is talking about. That does not change the fact that where the beam appears would travel faster than light. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/143 "2014-04-06T05:30:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > At very least, you should drop one last “I told you so” on your old SDMB debating buddies. Then ascend to a higher plane of consciousness. We’re hoping you won’t decohere our entire reality as a parting shot (the Buddha wouldn’t step on a snail, would he?) I’m only Siddhārtha Gautama in a parallel reality. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/144 "2014-04-06T05:33:25Z")
But you are right, I should not have used the term “information” as it has meaning in classical physics. Even in quantum entanglement you can’t send “useful information” as it is impossible to control which quantum state the first particle will take on when it is observed. So you wouldn’t know what to look for on the other side. That said, the spot would change position in relation to the surface of the moon faster than light, but no particles would. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/145 "2014-04-06T05:55:23Z")
I guess my position is that given the confusing nature of this topic (the interpretation of QM) and my laughable knowledge of the same, I’m not inclined to rule out _serious_ interpretations, though I will acknowledge that some are more favored than others. Articles in the Daily Mail or frankly articles that lack equations do not qualify as serious interpretations. Clarification: if we’re living in a simulation, that probably qualifies as part of the universal consciousness interpretation. I’m interpreting the latter broadly and not necessarily god-like. I hope I’m not being tautological though: reference frame artifacts sound like something else. Not that I remotely understand any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/146 "2014-04-06T08:34:02Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > That said, the spot would change position in relation to the surface of the moon faster than light, but no particles would. The spot isn’t a thing. Nothing moves _across_ the moon at all in the scenario you describe. There is the illusion of movement, just as there is the illusion of transverse movement on a movie screen, but nothing is actually moving across your field of view. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/147 "2014-04-06T10:20:58Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The spot isn’t a thing. Nothing moves _across_ the moon at all in the scenario you describe. > > There is the illusion of movement, just as there is the illusion of transverse movement on a movie screen, but nothing is actually moving across your field of view. That is the point…just as there may be an illusion of FTL simultaneity of movement of two entangled particles from your frame of reference. In general relativity simultaneity is dependant on the observer’s reference frame. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/148 "2014-04-06T10:24:57Z")
Fair enough then. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/149 "2014-04-06T10:28:29Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Plus, if there was a universal observer, why would there be a wave function at all, the act of that universal observer would collapse the wave function. > > That right there is evidence of an absence of a universal observer. Now that does not completely disprove some universal higher power but you are making an appeal to ignorance. I’m really surprised the response to that point wasn’t just “Oh, yes, but this kind of universal observer would obviously observe in a way that transcends what puny humans consider ‘observation’, and thus observe without collapsing the wave function” (or some such convenient weaselling). ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/150 "2014-04-06T15:03:35Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > As an example, if, from the earth, you take a laser pointer and flick it across the surface of the moon (please do not do this in case there are airplanes in the path) the beam will cross the moon at faster than the speed of light. The photons going there will not but the actual beam is hitting the surface will. This is not exactly related but the easiest to explain example I can think of right now. Not seeing it. I mean, it still takes over a second for light to travel between the earth and the moon. Thus, if you could flick your beam that fast (the visible major chord of the moon’s surface is about 18 light-milliseconds), the leading edge of the beam will be behind the trailing edge of the beam, so it will arrive at the moon later than if you had a steady, instantaneous beam. You will not observe it traveling faster than light, except in your imagination, assuming you had equipment capable of making that observation (lots of error to correct/adjust for with a beam that will be ten miles wide when it hits the moon, changing orientation as it moves across the surface and has a two second round trip between two moving bodies, assuming you can even see the reflection). ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/151 "2014-04-06T16:34:45Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Not seeing it. I mean, it still takes over a second for light to travel between the earth and the moon. Thus, if you could flick your beam that fast (the visible major chord of the moon’s surface is about 18 light-milliseconds), the leading edge of the beam will be behind the trailing edge of the beam, so it will arrive at the moon later than if you had a steady, instantaneous beam. You will not observe it traveling faster than light, except in your imagination, assuming you had equipment capable of making that observation (lots of error to correct/adjust for with a beam that will be ten miles wide when it hits the moon, changing orientation as it moves across the surface and has a two second round trip between two moving bodies, assuming you can even see the reflection). The point is that it is an illusion of FTL But the spot does “travel” FTL note 3 here. [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html) ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/152 "2014-04-06T19:44:48Z")
> [@For You](#): > > You will not observe it traveling faster than light, **except in your imagination…** Except, **imagination does exist** , and is created by physical reality (i.e. brain cells) so therefore imagination = real, correct? And therefore, the “FTL Spot” is also real, and therefore exists – doesn’t it? [my favorite monkey wrench…] ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/153 "2014-04-06T20:10:37Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Except, **imagination does exist** , and is created by physical reality (i.e. brain cells) so therefore imagination = real, correct? And therefore, the “FTL Spot” is also real, and therefore exists – doesn’t it? > [my favorite monkey wrench…] That’s not a monkey wrench. That’s merely loosening up the definition of “real” so much that it has no solid meaning at all. ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/154 "2014-04-06T20:32:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That’s not a monkey wrench. That’s merely loosening up the definition of “real” so much that it has no solid meaning at all. Loosening up? Seems to me the definition’s become more specific. A bit all-encompassing, perhaps – but we _are_ discussing a consciousness that expands across and is comprised of all existing matter & energy & information in the Known Universe. Why wouldn’t an all-encompassing term be appropriate? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/155 "2014-04-06T20:37:58Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Loosening up? Seems to me the definition’s become more specific. A bit all-encompassing, perhaps – but we _are_ discussing a consciousness that expands across and is comprised of all existing matter & energy & information in the Known Universe. Why wouldn’t an all-encompassing term be appropriate? Because the word “real” shouldn’t be so all-encompassing as to make nonexistent the word “unreal”. There is a difference between the concept of a “real thought” and the concept of “all thoughts become reality”. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/156 "2014-04-06T20:50:56Z")
Because it obfuscates. A _concept_ labeled “FTL spot” exists in exactly the same way that “imagination” exists; that in no way informs as to whether or not there is a basis in reality for a real “FTL spot” (protests by Professor Farnsworth duly noted\*). It is a rehash of the silly ontological argument for the existence of God, using equivocation in exactly the same way. \*Professor Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That’s what being is a scientist is all about. Cubert Farnsworth: No, that’s what being a magical elf is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/157 "2014-04-06T21:01:20Z")
If you don’t imagine something, does that mean it _doesn’t_ exist? ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/158 "2014-04-06T21:15:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Because the word “real” shouldn’t be so all-encompassing as to make nonexistent the word “unreal”. If that’s actually the case, how would you define the difference? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > If you don’t imagine something, does that mean it _doesn’t_ exist? Of course that’s not true. All baseball players may be athletes, but not all athletes are baseball players. C’mon **Czarcasm** , I know you can do better than this. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/159 "2014-04-06T21:24:50Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > C’mon **Czarcasm** , I know you can do better than this. 🙂 Not if you give me nonsense like > [@](#): > > Except, imagination does exist, and is created by physical reality (i.e. brain cells) so therefore imagination = real, correct? And therefore, the “FTL Spot” is also real, and therefore exists – doesn’t it? to work with. That type of “reasoning” is 100 miles wide and a 1/2 inch deep, akin to "Dude! What if every atom in my hand is it’s own universe, and in that universe is a planet, and on that planet is _another_ dude holding up his hand and saying to his buddy, “Dude! What if every atom in my hand…” ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092/160 "2014-04-06T22:27:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > …akin to "Dude! What if every atom in my hand is it’s own universe, and in that universe is a planet, and on that planet is _another_ dude holding up his hand and saying to his buddy, “Dude! What if every atom in my hand…” Pshaw, that’s amateur stuff. Not only does every atom in your hand represent infinite recursive worlds, each of those worlds are entangled with infinite parallel worlds, which themselves create a pattern not unlike the Mandelbrot Set meets Van Gogh’s left ear (or was it his right ear? I forget) and since all this can be imagined in the human mind, imagine what the universe itself is imagining as we speak?!?!? Oh look, my brownies are done… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-all-matter-driven-by-made-of-consciousness/685092.md?page=9)