Modeling of a system that is under constant change creates challenges that not not well understood.
Call it Induction, Correlation, Simulation or Modeling, the basic rule is to start with a system at equilibrium or Homeostasis so that the math is not too difficult. But real systems are never at equilibrium, those are all figments of the physicist's mind. Even when an equilibrium can be achieved in a laboratory, the question is still present. What exactly are we comparing reality to? Or, in other words, are we discussion auto- corelation or cross-correlation? Is the system self-similar or model of other other physical variable that might be nothing like. For example physicists equate black-holes with information theory or gas particles. But philosophers think the physicists might be all wrong about that. Even philosophers can't egree with the Platonists telling us that the ideal form comes first and the reality is just a poor copy of the ideal and the empiricists telling us that first web build a chair and then we create an abstract idea of "chair". But is reality the chair is nothing by an anthropomorphic attempt to minimize energy consumption so human creation of random acts of evolution can put attention to some details of a social system that is itself an accidental organization of thousands of years of human attempts to avoid killing each other.
- Marco Tavora, Black Hole Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics The Remarkable Similarities Between the Black Holes Mechanics and Laws of Thermodynamics (2020-04-11( Medium https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/black-hole-entropy-and-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-d85fd5d5cce2
- Craig Callender, quoted by Brendan Z. Foster Are We All Wrong About Black Holes? (2020-09-05) quantamagazine.org/craig-callender-are-we-all-wrong-about-black-holes-20190905/