Editing Cosmic censorship hypothesis (section)

==Basics==
Since the physical behavior of singularities is unknown, if singularities can be observed from the rest of spacetime, [[causality]] may break down, and [[physics]] may lose its predictive power. The issue cannot be avoided, since according to the [[Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems]], singularities are inevitable in physically reasonable situations. Still, in the absence of naked singularities, the universe, as described by the [[general theory of relativity]], is [[determinism|deterministic]]:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Earman |first=J. |title=Handbook of the philosophy of science |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-444-51560-5 |editor-last=Gabbay |editor-first=Dov M. |location=Amsterdam |pages=1369–1434 |chapter=Aspects of Determinism in Modern Physics |editor-last2=Thagard |editor-first2=Paul |editor-last3=Woods |editor-first3=John |chapter-url=https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/courses/prob-determ/Earman.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140522160538/http://www.pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2007a.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-22 |url-status=live}}</ref> it is possible to predict the entire evolution of the universe (possibly excluding some finite regions of space hidden inside event horizons of singularities), knowing only its condition at a certain moment of time (more precisely, everywhere on a [[spacelike]] three-dimensional hypersurface, called the [[Cauchy surface]]). Failure of the cosmic censorship hypothesis leads to the failure of determinism, because it is yet impossible to predict the behavior of spacetime in the causal future of a singularity. Cosmic censorship is not merely a problem of formal interest; some form of it is assumed whenever [[black hole]] event horizons are mentioned.{{Citation needed|date=October 2015}}

[[File:Roger Penrose-6Nov2005.jpg|thumb|Roger Penrose first formulated the cosmic censorship hypothesis in 1969.]]
The hypothesis was first formulated by [[Roger Penrose]] in 1969,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Penrose |first=Roger |year=1969 |title=Gravitational Collapse: the Role of General Relativity |journal=[[Nuovo Cimento]] |series=Rivista Serie |volume=1 |pages=252 |bibcode=1969NCimR...1..252P}}</ref> and it is not stated in a completely formal way. In a sense it is more of a research program proposal: part of the research is to find a proper formal statement that is physically reasonable, [[falsifiable]], and sufficiently general to be interesting.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Browne |first=Malcom W. |date=February 12, 1997 |title=A Bet on a Cosmic Scale, And a Concession, Sort Of |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/12/us/a-bet-on-a-cosmic-scale-and-a-concession-sort-of.html |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>  Because the statement is not a strictly formal one, there is sufficient latitude for (at least) two independent formulations: a weak form, and a strong form.