-7
$\begingroup$

My question at Evidence that Time is a Natural Phenomenon? was closed as a duplicate of What is time, does it flow, and if so what defines its direction?

I read the related question and I don't see that my question is answered. Related discussion on that thread presumed knowledge of the answer to my question as a baseline for their answers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm not, please re-open my question.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem with your question is that it is philosophical. Physicists get itchy from philosophy posted as physics. The logic of physics is that they measure how things look, in the objective reality, and what philosophy do you generate around it, is up to you :-) But I am just a layman, probably a pro knows it better. This is just how the pros look for me. My layman opinion is that I like to read about particles, quantum fields and so on, but also I get itchy about such topics. Not with philosophy et al, I often read them $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jan 19 at 22:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (well, not so strongly to have also an account there), I get itchy only if I read it on the PSE. My suggestion would be to think about your question, and try to somehow separate it into a physical part ($\approx$ how the world looks) and to a philosophy part ("what is time" and similars). Ask the second on the philosophy.stackexchange.com and the first here. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jan 19 at 22:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I see also a good chance, that if you remove the unphysical content from your question, the result will be really a dupe. $\endgroup$ – peterh - Reinstate Monica Jan 19 at 22:35
7
$\begingroup$

As one of the close-voters, I guess I should speak up: I did not vote to close this question as a duplicate; instead, I voted to close as being primarily opinion-based and therefore not answerable in objective, scientific terms.

In those terms, I would say that the existing closure as a duplicate is a less strict response (in that it sends you to other content which is at least relevant) than the question really warranted.

To the extent that there are parts of your question that are not duplicates of the linked thread, they are not on-topic questions for this site.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ We clearly have different understandings of the question. Thanks for speaking up. $\endgroup$ – Mitch Jan 21 at 16:55
1
$\begingroup$

I re-read the linked post again. I can see why as curators, you don't want a bunch of threads repeating similar discussions.

FWIW: This question has been bothering me for years and I didn't find the thread when I search this Stack.

FWIW2: The answer to my question might reside in the linked thread, but in my read the net result is that opinions vary. Clearly there is disagreement among the participants - whatever their qualifications...

FWIW3: The result of incorrectly marking a discussion as definitive is that you prevent further discussion which seeks the correct answer. This is the problem with Stack in general. I've seen it in my area of expertise.

Thx.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ It might be worth saying that the SE search engine is (at least in my experience) indeed not very good. $\endgroup$ – Jonas Jan 26 at 20:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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