Of course for an absolute understanding of the universe, theoretical and experimental science needs to go hand in hand. Simulations will definitely pave to way towards the truth but without observational evidence, we might get lost.

First get a quantumized computer to finalize pi, then prove/disprove dimensions, then create energy, then a black hole might be able to be analyzed definitively. Or ask n Tesla.

A theory is not an act of faith and surely does not stand, however it can have utility before it has been fully understood, and thus gain credence. The tools of science (maths and simulations) help give a theory it’s credibility until more conclusive evidence brings confirmation or repudiation.

I would “believe” a theory if it was right in other kinds of experiments and also predicted a way to solve the black hole information paradox. For example, if string theory could be found to work well in other experiments and also predicted fuzzballs, then I think it would be pertinent to take fuzzballs really seriously.

New theories and theoretical predictions are viable based on maths alone before confirming evidence e.g. cosmological constant, time dilation and black holes.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

History in all things can heal technology. This is the lesson of Prof. Neil Postman`s Technopoly.

History of Astronomical science shows often great time gaps before answers occur amoung the public.

It all depends upon the immediacy of the questions being answered.

When we need to know why and what the science is for black holes, there will be revelations, perhaps such as this course.

Everything seems to move so very slow in information sciences- and then the computer chip speed doubles every few years.

Black holes are so immense that computers are required to explain their… Niche.

So there is further hope in world science collaborations that we can pursue truth in science while hoping not to be lost in cultural differences…or speeds.

If individuation is required, we may need to retrench and attempt to approach things in alternative manners.

Model’s and theories guide our knowledge quest, they can never be the end all. We work with what we have at the time then look and see if we got it right, The looking and seeing can never be entirely replaced by simulations that only rely on theory and not observation of actuality.

In my view, mathematical consistency is the scientific foundation of everything, but observational evidence remains the ultimate proof. While equations provide the necessary logic, experiments are what validate our understanding of reality. I believe that both must work together: equations set the path and experiments confirm we have reached the truth

While mathematical consistency is a beautiful and necessary guiding light, history shows that physics cannot stand on mathematical proof alone; empirical verification remains the ultimate judge of reality.
Here is why:
Mathematics is a Language, Not Reality: Superb mathematical frameworks like String Theory or the Multiverse concept are internally consistent and elegant. However, mathematics can describe many logically possible universes that do not happen to be our universe. Without observational evidence, a theory risks becoming a branch of pure mathematics rather than physics.
The Role of Cosmic/Indirect Evidence: Since directly observing Hawking radiation from an astrophysical black hole is masked by cosmic microwave background noise, we cannot rely on direct look-and-see methods. In such cases, theories must look for indirect support—such as analog black holes in lab environments (sonic black holes), cosmological imprints from the early universe, or mathematical consistency with other already-proven frameworks (like quantum mechanics and general relativity).
Therefore, mathematical proof can keep a theory alive as a strong candidate, but it can never be absolutely accepted as a law of nature until nature itself provides a sign through observational data.