Clayjay

Aristotle noticed what he called natural order and what he termed Gravity was the natural order of the tendency of things to fall. Gravity as a idea proposed by Aristotle developed over two thousand years through Newton and to Einstein's relativity theory of gravity. I understand what you are saying if you take Aristotle's original idea of Gravity and attribute it as an induced idea from his observation. However when the idea of gravity was studied through science "gravity" theory was deduced. So "yes" induction in the broadest epistemological sense is the spark for an idea like gravity but the theory is logically deduced and logically tested. So scientific theory is logically deductive. On the other hand Quantum Mechanics was induced from the data measurements of the atom like the Bohr atom. There was no quantum theoretical idea that was proven logically. Nobody has called QM logical but it does have internal consistency the requires 22 adjustments that are logically not deduced but induced to create an outcome for QM to stay inline to experimental results. Gravity started as a theory and still is a theory through logical deduction. QM started as a logically induced construct and is still a logical construct but QM is not a theory. It is clearer in my mind to keep context in mind when a word is used. The idea of gravity can be attributed to induction but everything we are aware of is induced through our senses. Science is a deductive process whereas technology is induced. QM is a tool for the theoretical scientist to propose outcomes that experimental scientist can test which technicians then apply based on experimental results to new technology. QM is a great science and hugely valuable in general but it is not a theory - and that is worth understanding. QM creates answers but not understanding. I understand what you are saying and agree within the context of your statement. Hope I have added something useful. I do not think Aristotle formulated gravity but just defined it. Newton formulated gravity from Aristotle's idea. Newton created the theory of gravity from the idea of gravity.

I did assum an axiomatic statement "time sops at the event horizon" as a given condition - given "crossing the event horizon there is no change in his watch time" but logic is not proof yet it can be imagenery like " i "; however since information inside the event horizon can't be communicated to the outside how can any physics account for the internal physics except for imagenery solutions. There is no proof or experiment to test the theory and if you can't disprove a theory it is said that is proof it is not a theory. A mathematical singularity is either a starting point (big bang) or ending point (big cruch). Cosmology exist between those two points so looking at start and end points may be a red herring at this time because over 95% of current physics is "dark theory" which is to say we know nothing about it. I think it may be a wiser use of time and effort to be able to understand more about what processes are happening now then asking "first cause" questions. But I do enjoy the mental exercise as a logic question. Science is based in logic so logic is relevant as required but not sufficient for an answer.

This is just a logic analysis of the objective logic faced by cosmetologist about the physics inside a black-hole. Time stops at the event horizon thus, logically, time based physics stops including time invariant phenomena or any other phenomena for that matter which leaves only instantaneous physics. What existed before time? In theory that would be anti-gravity, like inflation or dark-energy, and gravity. This seems to say black-holes radiate anti-gravity into positive space and concentrate gravity into negative space or negative vacuum energy. This seems to say inside at the event horizon space-time is disassembled not crushed as the time based physics outside the event horizon would employ as explanation. This is only a logic perspective and science is logical with many perspectives. This doesn't answer the question it just frames the question.