Black holes can theoretically be viewed as computers of maximum density. However, it’s highly speculative that we could exploit their computational power. From an external perspective, even if information could be retrieved from Hawking radiation, it would come at the cost of dramatic computational overhead. I also wonder how one would “program” the black hole’s state to perform the desired computation. If you inject any structured information, it would become destructured in the most random form possible (random in the sense that Kolmogorov formally defined a random sequence). General relativity also implies tremendous latencies.
To me, this is not very different from—and arguably worse than—sending a hydrogen atom to the Sun and trying to exploit the computational result from the resulting thermal radiation. Good luck with that.
Now, if you consider the problem from inside the black hole… virtually everything we could say about the interior of a black hole is almost certainly wrong. The very notion of “inside” that applies to conventional physics may itself be incorrect in this extreme case.
Edit : To offer another comparison, would a compressed Turing machine be superior to an uncompressed one ? In terms of informational density, certainly, but otherwise I doubt it.
it’s valid critique and highlights the speculation in BH computation (overhead from Hawking decoding, scrambling of input, GR latencies, unknowable interiors). But the model doesn’t rely on it: The theorem proves external silence via density bounds alone (growth intersects finite limit, forcing compact non-emissive states), internals irrelevant, whether computable or not. If impractical, systems stagnate earlier (r≤1, silent anyway). Resolution holds: Thermo + geometry = quiet universe.
Updated article emphasizes this (thanks to feedback like yours)
Good demonstration, but I’m not convinced.
Black holes can theoretically be viewed as computers of maximum density. However, it’s highly speculative that we could exploit their computational power. From an external perspective, even if information could be retrieved from Hawking radiation, it would come at the cost of dramatic computational overhead. I also wonder how one would “program” the black hole’s state to perform the desired computation. If you inject any structured information, it would become destructured in the most random form possible (random in the sense that Kolmogorov formally defined a random sequence). General relativity also implies tremendous latencies.
To me, this is not very different from—and arguably worse than—sending a hydrogen atom to the Sun and trying to exploit the computational result from the resulting thermal radiation. Good luck with that.
Now, if you consider the problem from inside the black hole… virtually everything we could say about the interior of a black hole is almost certainly wrong. The very notion of “inside” that applies to conventional physics may itself be incorrect in this extreme case.
Edit : To offer another comparison, would a compressed Turing machine be superior to an uncompressed one ? In terms of informational density, certainly, but otherwise I doubt it.
it’s valid critique and highlights the speculation in BH computation (overhead from Hawking decoding, scrambling of input, GR latencies, unknowable interiors). But the model doesn’t rely on it: The theorem proves external silence via density bounds alone (growth intersects finite limit, forcing compact non-emissive states), internals irrelevant, whether computable or not. If impractical, systems stagnate earlier (r≤1, silent anyway). Resolution holds: Thermo + geometry = quiet universe.
Updated article emphasizes this (thanks to feedback like yours)