Do Merging Black Holes Create An Information-Loss Paradox?
The discussions about black hole information paradox already consumed lotta public money and they just illustrate clearly, that the physicists don't actually understand the concepts, which they themselves invented. In particular, the entropy is quantity derived on background of thermodynamics, i.e. classical physics at the human observer scale and as such is strictly related to observability concept. Once the objects aren't observable anymore (because they get blurred by quantum mechanics and/or horizon of black hole and/or simply they become indistinguishable each other), then the thermodynamics has nothing to say about them in similar way, like the special relativity has nothing to say about let say photon behavior, because
this concept is orthogonal to special relativity.
In addition, the thermodynamic description of black holes so far completely ignores the topological space-time inversion, which
runs at the event horizon and which all relativists so far consider only virtual artifact of co-moving coordinates. But this inversion switches the role of space and time coordinates and implies, that what did look like expansion above event horizon will behave like contraction beneath the even horizon with respect to thermodynamics - and vice versa.
The poor entropy handling arises immediately, once we consider than all gases spontaneously expand into infinite volume, "because" the entropy is indeed spontaneously rising. If it's so - how is it possible, that black holes should have "highest entropy" content, when they're "allegedly" formed by most compact pin-point form of matter known so far? The erroneous entropy handling is ideologically rooted in belief in relativistic Big Bang cosmology, according to which all matter of Universe ends within black holes, despite it should recycle in steady-state cosmology of dense aether model. It also reflects the infallible trust of formal physics in universal validity of its abstract theorems and descriptions of reality, despite that they're already borrowed from opposite observational perspectives. See also
AWT and cosmological time arrow