0

I'm new to philosophy stackexchange. So I'm confused as to what is acceptable. May I know how to improve this question? (It's getting downvoted)

Locality in quantum gravity?

Edit:

The question has been "put on hold as off-topic" and I've been told: "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site."

Why is this not about philosophy?

||||||
  • You never know who is going to be here on a given day. We do not keep experts on hand for each philosopher, or a physics specialist at hand. It just depends on the day you post your question, really. We have some very knowledgeable people here in science and mathematics but if you post your questions one after the other it can become mentally taxing for them. – Gordon Nov 26 '19 at 3:38
  • 1
    Then there is also the case where the philosophy of science people here do not deem your question to have enough philosophical interest. I agree people should give you feedback on a downvote, but that will always be a problem at Stack Exchange I guess. Don’t take it personally. Don’t ask all your questions at one time. My 2 cents. It’s holiday time in America too, so there may be reduced traffic etc. – Gordon Nov 26 '19 at 3:43
1

I can't speak to the other voters, but it looks like your question might be a better fit in Physics SE due to the highly technical nature of locality. Prima facie, it seems like it might be after edit a legitimate philosophical reference request; my sense is some of those who voted against it might not be in the analytical school and see the question as too "scientific". Not everyone subscribes to a natural epistemology.

||||||
  • It's been put on hold :/ . I think it will get downvoted on Physics Stackexchange :/ ... I disagree with: "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." If EPR is game so should this be allowed – More Anonymous Nov 26 '19 at 19:54
0

I voted for off-topic, because quantum gravity is an open problem in physics.

Even so there might be philosophers who have an opinion on those matters, it would mostly be guesswork about physics, not philosophy.

||||||
  • "guesswork about physics, not philosophy." - I see nothing wrong with using intuition, heuristic arguments or thought experiments as guesswork. – More Anonymous Nov 26 '19 at 22:14
  • 1
    @ThomasKlimpel That's interesting. How do you differentiate between an open problem in science and an ontological-centric philosophic discussion? Is the philosophy of science, in your view, what determines the ontology, and therefore that which is not adequately addressed by science neither scientific nor philosophical? – J D Nov 26 '19 at 22:24
  • @JD I don't even try. But if somebody had asked about speculations of philosophers on Poincare's conjecture before it was solved by Perelman, I would also have voted to close that question as off topic. – Thomas Klimpel Nov 26 '19 at 22:39
  • @ThomasKlimpel I wanted to ask about (existence of counter to) the Penrose-Lucas argument - but then I can foresee the same (pessimistic) logic applied and it being off topic. – More Anonymous Nov 27 '19 at 3:34
  • @ThomasKlimpel Also it seems to me that there is no role for philosophy to play in physics by this kind of logic :/ – More Anonymous Nov 27 '19 at 3:35
  • 1
    @MoreAnonymous My logic is much simpler: If you ask a non-philosophical question to which the only honest answer would be a simple "we don't know yet", then it does not become on-topic for philosophy.SE by just adding "I'm searching for philosopher's who argue for ...? I'm looking for references." – Thomas Klimpel Nov 27 '19 at 8:25
  • @ThomasKlimpel was Mach a philosopher? The honest answer to Mach's conjecture could have been "we don't know yet." Also the first line in wikipedia: "Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, ..." This is foundational so I think it should be allowed. – More Anonymous Nov 27 '19 at 8:31
  • @MoreAnonymous There were many decades between Mach's conjecture and Einstein's solution. So from the perspective of a questions and answers site, your example would have still basically a non-answerable question. So in my opinion, even in that case my close vote would have been justified. As I said, my logic is much simpler, no need to derive conclusions from it unrelated to its context. – Thomas Klimpel Nov 27 '19 at 9:58
  • @ThomasKlimpel We might be going talking past each other or on the same page but yet disagreeing on the scope. I'll summarise as a final comment: 1. Philosophy of Science does include foundations of physics (see wiki) 2. Locality is one of the bedrocks of all physics 3. While one may not know the answer one can still "guess" based on heuristic arguments. 4. This was done historically by philosophers such as Mach via the Mach conjecture. 5. From the perspective of Q&A site it should be possible to provide a whole range of references (Some hopefully be vindicated as Mach was). – More Anonymous Nov 27 '19 at 11:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .