The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable
&gt; And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best.<p>I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be &quot;inferred&quot; as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification.<p>By Sabine&#x27;s stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn&#x27;t been &quot;solved&quot; because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are at all related to future events. So when we say that induction is possible, we say so because we &quot;like best&quot; that theory of causality, rather than my alternate theory that when you finish reading this sentence, all physics will cease to function and the universe will end.<p>It didn&#x27;t happen, but we had no reason to know so ahead of time deductively. However, it is still reasonable (in my view) to believe in induction.<p>So sure, it&#x27;s perhaps &#x27;unsolvable&#x27;, but if a plausible explanation comes around that is consistent with modern physics that seems good to me.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;induction-problem&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;induction-problem&#x2F;</a>