>My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey You don't _have_ to read or understand everything. It's fairly evident tha

>My time is limited. You haven't given any reason why this isn't incoherent Malarkey You don't _have_ to read or understand everything. It's fairly evident that this is an article in the field of theoretical physics, and as such assumes certain understanding of the current thinking in the field. Now, I'm not an physicist, and I can't personally judge the underlying paper. _Especially_ because of this, I'm careful not to immediately dismiss this as "incoherent Malarkey" and "random balderdash". I like seeing this type of content on HN in the off-chance someone who _does_ know more can chip in their thoughts. Having said all this, what the paper proposes is not entirely inconceivable on its face. It's reasonably accepted in Quantum Mechanics that there's something special about "information" [0][1], so who knows? Maybe there's something here. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem