There are different ways of explaining this (like conversely talking about what computers and computation are) but my personal preference is to explain it in te

There are different ways of explaining this (like conversely talking about what computers and computation are) but my personal preference is to explain it in terms of time. We don't understand physics well enough to know whether time (and space [1]) can be arbitrarily halved over and over. For an actual "infinity point" you would need such halving of time of computation up to a point where you actually have infinitely small time increments. The way you would define this would be via a limit and again the main premise is arbitrary halving, something that we have not seen in nature and which is a mathematical tool, rather than a hard physical fact. Since you have physical computers, the composition of such a computer would have to lead to computations in these infinitesimal time brackets and in turn, for example, may necessitate infinitesimal matter. The way I understand the Planck length, at least as a concept, is that after some really small length of space then essentially you don't get anything smaller. In any case, talking about a "singularity point" is an activity done by social personalities who like to sound clever. But they are not saying anything remotely clear. As I mentioned, the other argument that one can make is to challenge the ability to indefinitely "improve yourself" as a machine, another dubious claim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length Edit: I am not a physicist, so there could be better ways to think of Planck length and discuss its validity.