Originally Posted by Freedom

Are they sound?

Not inside a singularity.

The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into the same state.

Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Not inside a singularity.

So you can make conclusions about a black hole, but you just can't physically place the argument inside it I can live with that since arguments can't be physically placed anywhere.

Originally Posted by Freedom

So you can make conclusions about a black hole, but you just can't physically place the argument inside it I can live with that since arguments can't be physically placed anywhere.

Not true, they have a physical state because the way the brain thinks, learns and remembers is by making physical connections and adjusting the characteristics of those connections.

Your thoughts actually have a physical representation in your brain.

Humans don't have software all the programing you’re not born with is hard-coded on the fly.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Not true, they have a physical state because the way the brain thinks, learns and remembers is by making physical connections and adjusting the characteristics of those connections.

You really don't want to face up to the facts on this one eh? Do arguments need to be inside something to make a conclusion about it?

Could you please show me one of these sound arguments, modify it's 'physical state' to be in keeping with the environment inside a black hole; and then demonstrate it's unsoundness?

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Your thoughts actually have a physical representation in your brain.

What is the relevance of this?

Originally Posted by Accipiter

Humans don't have software all the programing you’re not born with is hard-coded on the fly.

lol, hard-coded on the fly is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Freedom

You really don't want to face up to the facts on this one eh? Do arguments need to be inside something to make a conclusion about it?

Could you please show me one of these sound arguments, modify it's 'physical state' to be in keeping with the environment inside a black hole; and then demonstrate it's unsoundness?


What is the relevance of this?


lol, hard-coded on the fly is an oxymoron.

How is hard-coded on the fly an oxymoron?

All information is lost in a singularity, would you say that an argument is information?

Originally Posted by Accipiter

How is hard-coded on the fly an oxymoron?

Hard-coded means the structure is static throughout the lifetime of operation. i.e. DNA. If it changes on the fly then it is soft-coded or dynamic structure. i.e. software.

Originally Posted by Accipiter

All information is lost in a singularity, would you say that an argument is information?

You think I am falling for any of this? An argument doesn't have physical location, it is a concept. It's truth or falsity is totally independent of time or space which are not properties it holds.

You admit as much when you admit you can conclude things about the environment inside a black hole. It seems you are reduced to saying that if you threw someone in a black-hole they wouldn't be making any arguments (duh) thank you for that insight.