Re:Roy Kerr: Do Black Holes Have Singularities?
by sssilver on Thursday December 14, 2023 @09:02AM
(#38641392)
> prediction doesn't and can't contain information (in the technical sense) from the future, since by definition it's based only on what we know in the present
In the technical sense the future _is_ driven purely by the information available in the present. It’s a function of t-1.
The only reason future should be different from prediction is if the set of information available to the predictor about the present is different from the actual set of information about the present.
Re:Roy Kerr: Do Black Holes Have Singularities?
by Timon3 on Thursday December 14, 2023 @01:39PM
(#38645232)
Isn't this presupposing some hidden variable theory or superdeterminism to be true? If quantum interactions are truly random, the future is driven both by the information available in the present and randomness.
Re:Roy Kerr: Do Black Holes Have Singularities?
by rhn_mk1 on Thursday December 14, 2023 @09:10AM
(#38641488)
"Reasonable" is an unfortunate word IMO. An assumption doesn't come out of reasoning. We can't even estimate the probability of this assumption being right because we can't see the future.
The best way this word fits is that we can reason towards the conclusion that whether laws will change or not is an assumption.
Yes, prediction doesn't and can't contain information (in the technical sense) from the future, since by definition it's based only on what we know in the present.
> Do we have some ideas why rules of physics will be different in the future?
No. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the rules of physics will be the same in the future. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're the same inside a black hole. But in both cases we can't know.