From the article;
Quote:
|
"Let's say you were patient enough to wait around while a black hole evaporated, a process that could take billions of years. Once it had vanished, you could ask what happened to, say, an elephant that once succumbed to its gravitational grip. But as you look back to the time at which you thought the elephant had fallen in, you would find that locations in space-time had grown so fuzzy and uncertain that there would be no way to tell whether the elephant actually fell into the black hole or narrowly missed it. The information-loss paradox dissolves."
|
So, at the end of the observation, how can we guarantee we were actually even there to commence observing the location of the elephant to begin with? Does the initial location of the observer not become fuzzed as well in retrospect?
Following that line of thought, should we then not accept that, in this case, observing something over time causes a growing uncertainty about not only the location of the observed object, but also the validity/calibration (any attribute inherent to location) of the observer's measurement device/eyes/experimental setup/question? How can we be sure that, in retrospect, we created the right conditions to commence our observations to begin with?
Maybe I'm dribbling here, but it's mind blowing stuff regardless!