> The number of computer programs is incredibly large. Even assuming a dense packed instruction set, even 512 bits is already enough to contain more programs th

> The number of computer programs is incredibly large. Even assuming a dense packed instruction set, even 512 bits is already enough to contain more programs than can be assigned to individual atoms in a universe! That's right. We could label every single atom with a number that would fit in the AVX instruction registers. That scale is mind-blowing, but it's true. You're going the wrong direction. The issue isn't fitting atoms into data. It's fitting data into atoms. You can give every atom a GUID, but you can't give every GUID an atom! You don't have to put it in terms of economy. Our rate of growth for energy and data are unsustainable. Current growth would hit a wall informed by our understanding of physics somewhere very roughly in the thousands-of-years-range. So either we go beyond our needs for space and energy or growth slows down. Both of those are a big change from the status quo.