3 ms·
In both cases there is a described mechanism which produces the effects that are observed. In the case of Moore's law the mechanism has now been thwarted by phy
by sgt101 9y ago
In both cases there is a described mechanism which produces the effects that are observed. In the case of Moore's law the mechanism has now been thwarted by physics, everyone knew that this had to happen at some point, but the surprise was how long physics was staved off by clever engineering. In the case of Eroom's law the mechanisms seem strong, regulators will continue to strengthen or at least remain as strong, new drugs will have a higher bar to jump due to old drugs, market economics will dictate that firms will throw money at high risk projects to hail mary out of trouble. So to say that nothing about these trends must hold true misses the point that they are/were strongly founded and could be used to make good predictions about the evolution of the economy and society.
- alpos 9y agoI agree on all points. I merely wish to point out that the proper term for these is "strong trends" not "scientific law". Scientific laws typically do support a tendency or trend in effect but the accurate description of a present trend is not sufficient to call the observation a "law". To consider that upgrade we need universality and persistence. The fact that we know Moore's "law" and Eroom's "law" must both stop working at some point in the relatively near future means that they both fail this test.