[pdonis]

> Approximately, sure

This is irrelevant to the argument; our finite ability to measure masses is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what masses are physically possible, whether or not we can measure all of them with unbounded accuracy.

> there is infinity of digits available

You can't have it both ways. If it is physically true that there are an infinite number of digits available to specify an object's mass, then it is also physically true that there are multiple possible combinations of objects whose masses can sum to that same mass (in fact there will be an infinite number of them).

Conversely, if it is not physically true that there are multiple possible combinations of objects whose masses can sum to a given mass, there cannot be an infinite number of digits available to specify an object's mass: there must be only a finite number of possible masses, and the numbers specifying the possible masses must be such that no two such numbers add up to another such number.

[effie]

It is relevant because the limitation to our measurement capability means we can't know most of the digits. We can't confirm experimentally that a given mass can be composed of "multiple possible combinations of objects whose masses can sum to that same mass". The mass number for an object can exist and yet it may be impossible to duplicate it with other objects. Imagine every object having unique ID with infinity of digits.

[pdonis]

> Imagine every object having unique ID with infinity of digits.

And then, as I said, there will be an infinite number of possible combinations of other masses that will add to that mass. The fact that we can't verify that experimentally is irrelevant; your model allows it and that means that, in your model, the unique ID of a given black hole's mass would not uniquely identify the original pieces of matter that formed it, and therefore would not provide the information that you originally claimed it could provide, in the post of yours that started this subthread.