Taken in context of how supersymmetrical levels could have ever been reached, is really a wonderful thnng to consider. If singularities were to be devised in methods that would experiementally bring forth blackholes at the microstates. Then what value is derived from learning about high energy and the levels we must go through to speak about these singularities?

From classical discritpion of GR to the understanding that supergravity could have ever been devised as a method to live in supersymmetrical worlds, would have been a challenge indeed, and we might ask where would time would begin, and what was below time?

**by Stephen Hawking**

It becomes very difficult then for anyone to accept that Robert Laughlin might have “wondered” about about condensed matter physics to have wonder what the building blocks shall be at such levels? That he might have wanted to stay to discrete structures for explanations as far as he could tell experimentally?:)

You see this is okay. That one can direct their attention to such infrastructures to ask, what the ultimate building block shall be, that we constantly refocus our mind to the finer things(abstract mathematical forays into these fine building blocks), only to find, we have progress well into the cosmological view, of such microstates?

But to follow is this what Peter Woit thinks?

**Peter Woit said–?***His argument is in Euclidean quantum gravity, which he describes as “the only sane way to do quantum gravity non-perturbatively”, something which some might disagree with. What he seems to be arguing is that, while it is true you get information loss in the path integral over metrics on a fixed non-trivial black hole topology, you really need to sum over all topologies. When you do this you get unitary evolution from the trivial (no black hole) topology and the non-trivial topologies give contributions that are independent of the initial state and don’t contribute to the initial-final state amplitude.*

*I guess what this means is that he is claiming that, sure, if you knew you really had a black hole, then there would be a problem with unitarity, but in quantum gravity you don’t ever really know that you have a black hole, you also have to take into account the amplitude for not actually having one and when you properly do this the unitarity problem goes away.*

You must accept my humble apologies, but to have been given these directions(quotes analogies in reference links and statements, from both Lubos Motl and Peter Woit, I wonder about the difference in their interpretations of the mathematics they are using? Are they so fundamntally at odds with each other, that they do not realize that they are working very close in their idealizations?