Someone wrote me PM asking about the pedagogical merit and scientific validity of three papers by Rainer Zimmermann (Philosophy of Science, some connections to Cambridge and Uni Kassel) I cannot judge on my own, but must throw the question open. The three papers are http://arxiv.org/physics/0107061 [Broken] http://arxiv.org/physics/0107081 [Broken] http://arxiv.org/physics/0108026 [Broken] They can discuss the PHILOSOPHICAL merit of Zimmermann's discussion of LQG over in the Philosophy forum. What I have been asked is not about this. The person writing about this wants to know if it would be a useful non-mathematical introduction to the subject. Anyone who is willing to help, have a look and see what you think. I have looked at the first paper and can make several observations: 1. it really is about LQG 2. it really is non-mathematical (it is all words, no formulas) 3. the references to technical papers are those of an intelligent and knowledgeable person----that is: the bibliography at the end is extensive and competent and invites use. 4. when he discusses Spinoza and Leibniz I cannot understand much, but when he talks about Baez and Ashtekar I understand some of what he says and it is not all that boring either Customary Quantum theory and General Relativity are incompatible at the foundation level and therefore at the level of basic philosophical issues. Therefore to successfully quantize General Relativity one must reconsider basic question like what is space what is time what is the observer what is measurement what about Mach's principle and what do you make of causality. The smell of the issues which must be addressed will always attract philosophers. Therefore people who do QGR should keep the window closed or they will be getting in. Actually it might help to listen. I have to go. Cant resolve this right now.