It's actually the opposite.

Possibilities in theoretical physics should be left to theoretical physicists, some of whom can be considered philosophers.

May I ask How so ?

Is physics the only field which has a "theoretical aspect" ?

Science tells you what you should do, and philosophy tells you what you can do.

This is one of those airy quotes that you can interpret however you want. I'm usually weary of quotes that reduce a whole disciple to a maxim. They usually only work when they are by humorists. In relation to the functions of philosophy or science - you can argue pretty much anything.

“Every good mathematician is at least half a philosopher, and every good philosopher is at least half a mathematician.”
― Gottlob Frege

The benefit of being over indoctrinated in one field is you are free to explore another one more loosely.

philosophy tells us what we should do. — Swimmingwithfishes

Philosophers are the last people you should let tell you what to do.

I don't know how meaningful what I'm going to say will be in re your question's import but my approach will be from the other side of the coin of possibility viz. impossibility, although I suspect it might amount to the same thing.

1. Logical impossibility [contradiction]. A square circle is impossible. This variety of impossibility is what the entire edifice of philosophy is based on. Take note, however, that there are logics that make room for true contradictions e.g. paraconsistent logic and dialetheism.

2. Physical impossibility, an example of which is the now-famous speed limit on all physical motion, kind courtesy of the great Albert Einstein.

3. Technological impossibility, an example of which is teleportation, a trope in the Star Trek franchise

And, just for fun and because I've run out meaningful things to say, the impossibility implied in:

4. "You're impossible!" screamed Greta as she stormed out of the room.

It's only a hunch of mine but philosophy, at least its logic department, seems to be well on its way exploring the subject of possibility/impossibility as it applies to itself and other disciplines as well - sometimes it gives philosophy a game-like quality and we're left with the impression that we're all children at heart though we now have crow's feet around our eyes, knee problems, and backaches.

Science, on the other hand, seems to be focused on physical and technological possibilities.

Will the two, philosophical and scientific, trajectories intersect at some point or is one a subset of the other? Your guess is as good as mine.

A square circle is impossible. — TheMadFool

I wish people would stop saying that. The unit circle in the taxicab metric is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

I'll give it a look. Thanks.

Doesn't physical possibility depend on weather or not physics governs everything ? And can fields like biology and chemistry have their own immutable laws i.e survival of the fittest ?

Doesn't physical possibility depend on weather or not physics governs everything ? And can fields like biology and chemistry have their own immutable laws i.e survival of the fittest ? — Swimmingwithfishes

I don't know if this amounts to anything but science seems to be a poor yardstick to study the topic of possibility/impossibility because of the problem of induction. It's true that empirical evidence leads to the discovery of patterns in nature but induction, the strain of logic at work in science, goes out of its way to stress on the contingent nature of empirical knowledge, science inclusive. The same may not apply to logical impossibility - contradictions - because that would mean we're living in a world that doesn't make sense, make sense in the sense that the world is coherent/consistent. To make the long story short, I would be dumbfounded if the law of noncontradiction were violated but mildly amused if a law of nature were violated.

More can be said.

Isn't the problem of induction something in philosophy as well ?

Isn't the problem of induction something in philosophy as well ? — Swimmingwithfishes

It's a problem of epistemology so it covers the waterfront.

Isn't the problem of induction something in philosophy as well ? — Swimmingwithfishes

Well, it's a philosophical take on empiricism which itself, as far as I know, is the foundation of the sciences.

I think it would be a very limited philosophy if it was just about telling people what they should do. Philosophy is the whole history of analysis, and is needed for looking at assumptions arising in science. At it's best, philosophy is not about moralising but about looking beneath the surface of all views.

There was a comment regarding logic a while ago
That got my attention

> Be careful with the logic they study in the typical philosophy course.

> They only handle the very primitive beginnings of it. They do not even seem to deal with 19th century Boolean algebra, let alone with serious mathematical logic.

> Using that primitive tool, i.e. just some bits and bobs of Aristotelian logic, you won't get anywhere.

> Without a firm grasp on the work of Gödel, Tarski, Church, and Turing, you won't be aware of the fundamental limitations of first-order logic, especially, when dragging basic number theory (PA) into the fray.

> You will easily overestimate what is possible, simply, because you do not know that it is completely impossible. That is one of the many reasons why the absurd optimism of contemporary philosophy quickly degenerates into mere bullshit.

Wouldn't this comment imply that even logic develops ? And isn't enough to know possibilities

Well, a couple of things:

1. There seems to be a huge body of work on the limitations of logic, math, science, almost every subject we can conceive of. Most of them are obscured by garden variety theses, articles, essays, and so on and their importance is equalled only by their abstruseness insofar as I'm concerned.

2.These limitations should, if anything productive is to follow from them, give us new insights into the nature of logic, math, science and, if all goes well, provide us with clues to how we may improve/replace these "tools".

I'm out.