My non-FQXi Essay
Yes, this is true. I have just written my non-FQXi Essay, in the sense that I have not submitted it to the presently running edition, now featuring the theme “What’s Ultimately Possible in Physics?”.
You may be wondering why I have not submitted it. After consideration, I have found some reasons, but let me tell you only the short one: I concluded that it is undignified to compete for a prize on speculation.
But I have written my short essay anyway. It took me only a couple of hours, and I must point out that it is not a scientific work, nor a philosophical work. It is a speculative work. But this fact does not mean that it is not a serious speculative work. 
So here it is, in case you are interested:
Title: When Response Nullifies
Author: Christine Córdula Dantas
3 pages, 72 Kb, pdf format
Update 05 Oct 2009: A few typos, corrections, stylistic improvements and additions were made. Please replace previous version with the current one. Other corrections are welcomed. Thanks!
October 6, 2009 at 5:45 am
Hi Christine,
A very thought provoking essay, one which I share some affinity with and enjoyed. I can certainly identify with you calling our universe one whose essence is its responsive nature, which you could also call being a reactive one. Further it is interesting the fine line and distinction you draw between what one calls simple observation and what be response; which is an important difference.
However, this responsive nature, at least from my own perspective, relates to and is dependent upon an even more fundamental quality of our world, that being potential; whose essence is what physics has always been trying to discover. That is to say, that while simple observation tells us in part what and how the world is, yet tells us little or nothing of why it comes to be this way; as this knowledge can only come from realizing its potential.
This manifests itself with its actions of the past, whether it be those revealed with aid of a telescope, when we peer into the vastness of the heavens, or with our probing into what we call arbitrarily the realm of the quanta. None the less this represents only as being what this potential has become, yet with our minds alone we are able to imagine what why this might have come to be or become in the future.
Therefore for me, it is only important that we are able to recognize potential and have the capacity to dream as to contemplate what that might be as to become. That is to understand what the potential of the universe could be, other than the realization of some ultimate dream.
Best,
Phil
P.S. I do think you should have entered the contest, not that I disagree speculation shouldn’t be awarded a prize. However, I find this essay not to be simply speculation, yet rather being more of a dream. Therefore, I think that is not only it worthy of reward, yet to hold and offer value in its sharing.
October 6, 2009 at 8:05 am
Hi Phil,
A very interesting comment of yours, and I share your point of view.
One thing that latter made me think concerning my note — “undignified to compete for a prize on speculation” — I should have added “undignified for me“, because I do not wish to imply that all present competitors are “undignified people” just because they are competing for the prize; on the contrary, for many of them I have great admiration and respect.
The point is: I do not think that speculation is a bad or defective activity, on the contrary, it is healthy and a basis for the freedom of mind, which I very much appreciate. The problem I have with that kind of prizes is the fact that it is not clear to what they are giving support. The theme is quite speculative and easily crosses the scientific bounds. This is not problematic if one is willing to make a clear distinction. I’m not sure this is the case on the current FQXi prize.
Thank you for reading and your kind words.
Best,
Christine
October 7, 2009 at 8:09 am
Hi Christine,
Although I find there exists at times many commonalities between us, I would have it be known this isn’t the primary reason I liked your essay, rather it’s because I find it comes with a lot of truth. This is further brought out in the reasons for you having reservations about offering it up for the contest. However, I would argue that if one restricts their ability to act resultant of being uncertain of others (actions and or intent), then this stands in contradiction of your premise, that the world being in essence one driven by response. That is I would say first put out your own take on the subject, before you judge or consider the reaction, for that is the only way one can ever realize their own potential.
Sincerely.
Phil
October 7, 2009 at 9:00 am
Hi Phil,
My reservations to not submit my essay to the contest is not related to some fear of reaction or judgements from others. Otherwise I would not have even considered to make it available over the internet.
But it is true that it would be interesting to receive feedback from the jury. However, from my previous experience in the FQXi contest, one will never receive any kind of report concerning the jury’s opinion and feedback, only the final result. I must say that I was quite disappointed with that previous contest (not on the fact of not winning a prize, but on not knowing their position on my ideas; I’ve good essentially no feedback at all).
Another point is the nature of the contest itself. From the first edition (on the nature of time), it was clear to me that the essays should present new ideas at a deeper, original, conceptual level, at a more philosophical level, because that subject is clearly at the frontier of metaphysics. The present edition makes the situation worse. It is evidently extremely speculative. So I wonder what is FQXi supporting? Science, philosophy, speculation — all that together? But under what label? A contest for scientists to speculate, disguised in a scientific-like format? I think this is confusing and dangerous.
Both reasons above made me not submit my essay to the present edition.
Best,
Christine
October 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Of course, Christine, they like (vain) speculation and mainly support this, rather than problem-solving results, even beyond this contest, as becomes obvious from supported projects and activities. We have already discussed it in connection to a recent supported conference. But one should add, of course, that there is practically no problem-solving results for real-world, truly physical problems in modern official science (in correlation with your essay!). As these essay contests are open to a wide range of contributions, one could imagine that it’s an attempt to overcome this sad situation and give way to some new ideas. Except that, as you correctly note, there is no feedback at all, and I would add, no expected further consequences (like those new ideas support or at least publication). Or do they want just to silently borrow ideas from others? In any case, it all demonstrates unfortunately that truly novel and problem-solving ideas are not really, practically welcome in today’s science organisation and support, from any sources. Which can only result in the observed general stagnation and moral degradation: even if problem-solving development ways have been clearly specified somewhere “on the margins”, they are rejected and ignored by the establishment and its well-organised “communities”, usually without any sensible feedback, as you point out for this case.
Sorry for generalities, they’re just pressing. Back to your essay here, I like it for originality (I’d rather say “non-mainstreamity”, independence of any “accepted” ideas), “Bergsonism”, and … kind of complexity. Have you invented it all yourself, just like that, momentarily?! A wunderkind, then
… and a rocket scientist, after all! 
. Or was it a result of a longer reflection? Anyway, you’re right, they cannot appreciate it (you avoid to say that, but I say that!). One should be looking for truth only in the name of that genuine, unreduced, consistent truth, right? While theirs may be numerous purposes, but apparently not this one.
It is interesting that you seem to touch upon these modern science problems in your essay, although in their special “philosophical” expression. But finally you put very harsh limits to what is practically possible in (at least modern) physics! You’ll tell me if I understood it properly, but you seem to state that the indispensable switch in science from now inefficient passive “observability” to the dominating “responsiveness” of nature (hello to our old friend Bergson?) is virtually impossible in the present state of things, while later … something even much more awful may happen it seems not only to our science but to the universe itself?! Even if you imply something more familiar, like the ultimate “death of the universe”, I do like that “surrealistic” final expression of ultimate pessimism and hard truth beyond comprehension! So much better than a senseless standard (and vain) “hope for better” in some other essays, just because it’s better to hope for better… While in reality it’s much better to accept the hard but unreduced truth. Everybody dies, like in genuine classical tragedy (contrary to a modern cheap show where everything is good and nice, both vain hope and absence of any hope). Only impossible (but well-specified) hope can be of interest.
Is there any practical inference for science development from your vision? I also have a strange intuitive impression that you keep something back, as if there is a still more ultimate and horrible truth one shouldn’t even dare to talk about… Maybe it’s just because you’re a great writer, or I’m your great reader, or both
. I hope for your responsiveness in exchange to my responsiveness. 
Responsible responsiveness, that’s what we need, in science and beyond, contrary to their irresponsible observability nullifying all responses. You see, I’m already a perfect adherent to your teaching (even though I also keep something back, but that’s a responsive something! ). Only a progressive millionaire is missing to make us (and Bergson elsewhere) absolutely happy. 
October 7, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Hi Andrei,
Thanks for taking your time to read my essay and put some thoughts and questions on it.
It is true, I do in fact put some “harsh limits to what is practically possible in (at least modern) physics”, as you state… I think there is an essential, qualitative and fundamental need for a change of perspective — from observability to responsiveness — at some point in our understanding and assimilation of what nature truthfully is. I am not pessimistic to whether this can be achieved, but to when it can be. I have the feeling that there is a long way to go.
“something even much more awful may happen it seems not only to our science but to the universe itself?! (…) I also have a strange intuitive impression that you keep something back, as if there is a still more ultimate and horrible truth one shouldn’t even dare to talk about…” —
I’m sorry for the strong impressions, but it is not really my intention. I see nature as a breathtaking abysm in which a fall towards it does not lead to a fatality, but something else that we cannot understand. It is difficult to fall appropriately. So I very much feel like myself like an ovule in the edge of such an abysm. Perhaps that is what shows up in my writtings. But my vision of nature should be interpreted more as something beautiful, not dreadful. This is why I like Pascal’s quote, it is so breathtaking. (And similar thoughts like Bergson’s emphasis on more qualiative and intuitive concepts. These inspire me somehow to develop my digressions, you are quite right).
“Is there any practical inference for science development from your vision?” None that I can envision; I’m not that sagacious, I’m a dreamer!
Best,
Christine
October 8, 2009 at 7:33 am
Hi Christine,
How could I not admit the reasons you cite for withholding your essay as being reasonable and in the end of course strictly your own decision. My only point being, despite the lack of official feedback and clarity of purpose, it still stands to being a forum where your ideas may be more widely showcased and shared. That is for me, an idea not offered to be shared, is the same as a potential denied its chance to be realized. So as you said to Andrei that your ideas present “like an ovule in the edge of such an abysm”, without them being shared they stand no chance to be assimilated by others and thereby inseminated. So if nature is to be taken as being as your guide, then all paths must be considered before the true one can be realized.
Best,
Phil