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.
I’m only Siddhārtha Gautama in a parallel reality. 
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough then.
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).
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
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.
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”.
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.
If you don’t imagine something, does that mean it doesn’t exist?
If that’s actually the case, how would you define the difference?
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. 
Not if you give me nonsense like
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…”
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…