good to you sir

very good sir

No, the laws of nature are under no obligation to conform to human intuition. Counterintuitiveness is an unavoidable consequence when we probe reality beyond our everyday evolutionary scale.
Here is why:
The Evolutionary Bias of Intuition: Our human intuition evolved exclusively to survive in a macroscopic, low-gravity, and low-speed environment. It tells us that time is absolute and solid objects are stationary. However, nature operates on completely different principles at the extremes—such as the Planck scale in String Theory or near a black hole singularity.
The Role of Mathematics: Frameworks like Fuzzball Complementarity show that while physical scenarios might seem completely alien or counterintuitive to us, they remain perfectly logical and consistent within the language of mathematics.
An Unavoidable Reality: As we dig deeper into quantum gravity, we must accept that reality is fundamentally different from what we perceive. Expecting the universe to always “make sense” on an intuitive level is a human-centric bias; nature’s only requirement is mathematical consistency and empirical truth.

very good sir

Yes, I strongly agree with Professor Mathur’s suggestion that information conservation (determinism) should be a fundamental pillar of any consistent physical theory, including Quantum Gravity.
Here is why:
The Core of Quantum Mechanics: Unitary and predictability are foundational to quantum mechanics. If information is truly lost forever in a black hole evaporation process, it breaks the absolute mathematical structure of quantum theory, leading to a fundamental paradox (The Black Hole Information Paradox).
The Litmus Test: Therefore, any successful theory of Quantum Gravity (whether it is String Theory’s fuzzball proposal, Loop Quantum Gravity, or Holographic Principle) must solve this problem without losing information. If a proposed theory fails to preserve information, it indicates that the theory is likely incomplete or conceptually flawed.
In short, preserving information is not just a preference; it is a vital litmus test to check if our quantum and gravitational descriptions of nature are truly consistent.

thanks sir

Yes, I believe that while we may never reach a ‘perfectly absolute’ theory, physics is an asymptotic journey toward the ultimate truth.
Here is why:
The Nature of Physics: Physics is inherently an empirical science. As our technology and observational tools advance, we probe deeper into realms we couldn’t access before (like the Planck scale or the edge of the observable universe). Newton wasn’t entirely “wrong”; his equations were just a limit of a broader reality that Einstein’s General Relativity later explained.
The Clash of the Giants: Right now, our description of reality is fractured because our two best theories—General Relativity (for the very large) and Quantum Mechanics (for the very small)—mathematically disagree at places like black hole singularities. This proves our current knowledge is incomplete, but it doesn’t mean a unified theory (like Quantum Gravity or String Theory) is impossible.
Asymptotic Approximation: Even if our knowledge is initially built on imperfect data, each successive model becomes more comprehensive and less wrong. We might never know if we have reached the absolute final answer because we can never perform infinite experiments, but we can definitely reach a stage where our theories can explain and predict every measurable aspect of physical reality with holistic accuracy.
Therefore, we are not just “patching holes”—we are fundamentally expanding the framework of human understanding.