Why was this answer to "In category theory, why do we meet more left adjoints than right adjoints?" deleted?

Question

This answer was converted to a comment and deleted.

In category theory, why do we meet more left adjoints than right adjoints

Yes, philosophy has an answer. Our universe is contingent. There are many possible ways it could have operated, in principle. What math, or logic applies to it in practice, cannot be predicted from logic principles, or math theory.

This point was articulated with great force by Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant however, did not go as far as philosophy has today. Kant held there were at least a few math relations we could know a priori that were true, and his go-to example was Euclidean geometry. Subsequently, non-Euclidean geometries were discovered in potential math space, and they actually turn out to be how our universe behaves! The desire to believe in the a priori "truth" of Euclidean geometry turned out to be a fallacy, of failure of imagination on Kant's part (the informal fallacy is generally called argument from ignorance)!! Apply this lesson to our world, and we cannot predict a priori (from logic or math principles) what math will apply to any physical aspect of our universe .

Subsequently, Godel discovered that one cannot even derive logic or math principles with confidence even within math-space, much less whether they apply to our world. And logic pluralism shows that there are infinite logics, and we cannot know if any of them even apply to our world. https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/logics/

So -- the answer philosophy has, is that the lack of symmetry that mathematicians have found in applying math to our world, just happens to be the way our contingent world worked out.

This was not a comment, it was an answer, which is noted in the opening and closing sentence.

The answer does not seem to satisfy any of the criteria for deletion:

• commentary on the question or other answers
• asking another, different question
• “thanks!” or “me too!” responses
• exact duplicates of other answers
• barely more than a link to an external site
• not even a partial answer to the actual question

This was a 4 paragraph answer, which cited three different philosophers over 4 centuries. While the question asker does not consider any of the answers to actually answer the question, all three answers basically offer a similar message, that what the asker wants philosophy to provide, is not possible, at least in our world.

The policy of the site, to my knowledge, is that it is desirable to convert comments with content into answers. Not the other way around.

Answer 1

This is an IS and not an OUGHT post. The IS is:

Because this enterprise is largely laissez-faire and is volunteer driven, and the community itself often works at cross-purposes with an ebb and tide of interest and policies on how to run the site.

We are first-and-foremost supposed to be building a knowledge base on behalf of our gracious hosts who provide these resources, and some of the for are very democratic and active, and others are less so. As such, many users have idiosyncratic views on what is philosophy, what is a good question and answer, what this site should be used for, and there is a bare minimum of effort put into building a community.

There is a very broad range of contributors from high school students looking for a gentle introduction into life-altering topics to obviously professional academics who have very strong urges to impose their worldview on content. It has been my experience that a great deal of anonymity discourages social accountability, with moderators intervening only in exceptional cases.

I for one believe that the parties acted in error, and am glad to see the matter has been resolved.