3 ms·

> as far as I know, the universe is finite. I don't think we know that. We don't even know how big the universe really is - we can only see so far. All we have

> as far as I know, the universe is finite. I don't think we know that. We don't even know how big the universe really is - we can only see so far. All we have is a best guess. There may also be a multiverse out there (or right beside us). And, creating universes might be a thing. ... I don't expect Moore's law to hold for ever either, but I don't believe in creating unnecessary caps.

matthewdgreen 1y ago
I think you could very easily give a cap that hinges on our current understanding of basic physical limitations, and it would arrive surprisingly soon.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  That's the thing about Moore's law - it has assumed from the beginning that our 'current understanding of basic physical limitations' is incomplete, and been proven correct on that front many times over.
  - adrianN 1y ago
    Our understanding of basic physical limits seems reasonably good and hasn't changed for a couple of generations. Our understanding of engineering limitations on the other hand is not so good and subject to frequent change.
  - Teever 1y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. can you elaborate on that? As I understand it Moore's Law doesn't address any sort of fundamental physical limitations other than perhaps an absolutely limit in terms of some fundamental limit on the smallness of an object, it's just an observation of the doubling of transistor density over a consistent period of time. It seems more like an economical or social observation than a physical one to me.
    - mandmandam 1y ago
      I was using OP's terminology, pointing out that people (including Moore himself) have been warning of an imminent cap on Moore's law since at least 1975. Getting into fine detail of what constitutes a 'fundamental physical limit' as opposed to an engineering challenge wasn't really the point, though I personally believe that our understanding of physical limits will develop further. We don't know what we don't know - there's always the potential of radical technology coming from an upending of things which were 'established' for decades or centuries previously; that's just the nature of science.
layer8 1y ago
In contexts like these, “universe” means the observable universe, which is finite in size. Also, creating universes (in the usual models) conserves energy, so you don’t actually gain anything by that.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  > In contexts like these, “universe” means the observable universe, which is finite in size. Also, creating universes (in the usual models) conserves energy, so you don’t actually gain anything by that. "In the usual models" - that's the whole point. For the entire 60 year history of Moore's Law, the "usual models" have stated that it would come to an end in about ten years.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

I think you could very easily give a cap that hinges on our current understanding of basic physical limitations, and it would arrive surprisingly soon.

mandmandam 1y ago
That's the thing about Moore's law - it has assumed from the beginning that our 'current understanding of basic physical limitations' is incomplete, and been proven correct on that front many times over.
- adrianN 1y ago
  Our understanding of basic physical limits seems reasonably good and hasn't changed for a couple of generations. Our understanding of engineering limitations on the other hand is not so good and subject to frequent change.
- Teever 1y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. can you elaborate on that? As I understand it Moore's Law doesn't address any sort of fundamental physical limitations other than perhaps an absolutely limit in terms of some fundamental limit on the smallness of an object, it's just an observation of the doubling of transistor density over a consistent period of time. It seems more like an economical or social observation than a physical one to me.
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    I was using OP's terminology, pointing out that people (including Moore himself) have been warning of an imminent cap on Moore's law since at least 1975. Getting into fine detail of what constitutes a 'fundamental physical limit' as opposed to an engineering challenge wasn't really the point, though I personally believe that our understanding of physical limits will develop further. We don't know what we don't know - there's always the potential of radical technology coming from an upending of things which were 'established' for decades or centuries previously; that's just the nature of science.

layer8 1y ago

In contexts like these, “universe” means the observable universe, which is finite in size. Also, creating universes (in the usual models) conserves energy, so you don’t actually gain anything by that.

mandmandam 1y ago
> In contexts like these, “universe” means the observable universe, which is finite in size. Also, creating universes (in the usual models) conserves energy, so you don’t actually gain anything by that. "In the usual models" - that's the whole point. For the entire 60 year history of Moore's Law, the "usual models" have stated that it would come to an end in about ten years.