> you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point That is quite the accusation coming from someone whose entry into the conversation was "Wall of tex

> you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point That is quite the accusation coming from someone whose entry into the conversation was "Wall of text, didn't answer the question." But let's see... > Dllthomas correctly pointed out... dllthomas did not "point out" anything, correctly or otherwise. All he did was ask the following question: "How does that remain true after the black hole has evaporated and there is no longer a horizon?" This question assumes that black holes evaporate. That assumption may be incorrect. We do not know whether or not black holes actually evaporate. In fact, we do not even know whether or not black holes actually form at all. And therefore: > (2) resolves (1) when the black hole disappears That might be true if (2) were true. Even that is arguable, but it is neither here nor there because we do not know whether or not (2) is true > compared to consensus is a radical view Yes, of course. The consensus view leads to a paradox, and so we know that the consensus view cannot possibly be correct. We also know that decades of effort have not resolved this paradox, and so it is extremely unlikely that there is a simple straightforward solution that has simply been overlooked. So the correct solution will almost certainly be a radical departure from the current consensus.