All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

# It is proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Debate Round Forfeited
Chodubhagat has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/7/2018 Category: Technology Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 106480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 Con Please note that my job is not to prove that there is no limit to how small computer components will get; it is to prove that it has not been PROVED that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. Pro and readers, don't strawman my position. Let's isolate an argument that suggest that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. 1. "Computer components can't scale infinitely, so there has to be a limit to how small they will get. That is proof that there is a limit to how small computer components will get." Imagine someone said that there is a smallest size. Well, that can't be the smallest size because it is made of smaller sizes; two halves of its size, for example. So there is no smallest size because there are always smaller sizes than any candidate for the smallest size. If so, there is every reason to think that -- no matter how small your computer components get -- there are yet smaller hypothetically possible computer components. 2: "The laws of physics provide a barrier to how small computer components can get. That is proof that there is a limit to how small computer components will get." When making this argument, someone might refer to there being a limit to how small traditional transistors will get. It might be hard to see it because we're still in the age of transistors, but that's like saying -- in the 1950s -- that computer components will stop getting smaller once or before the smallest possible size for a vacuum tube is reached. Just because one technology has reached its limit, that doesn't mean that there won't be another technology to take its place, below the physical barrier for the old one. It might be suggested that we'll run out of possible technologies that work, but, if that were the case, it would imply that there are a lot of different physical limits, layered on top of each other. No one has yet proved this. 3: "The probability of total progress failure increases as more new generations of components are made. It is proved that this will lead to there being a limit to how small computer components will get." If ever smaller and more numerous events could mess up larger scale events, such as us, with near certainty, we would not exist. Think of all the near infinitesimally small and numerous events that would have prevented you from continuing to exist if this were the case. Maybe after a while, the probability will increase. But, with more components, there will be a vanishingly lower risk of irrecoverable failure. Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where the probability of irrecoverable failure, within all the time after a certain point, will be about 0.003. Then, later, it will be about 0.0038. Then 0.00385. What's happening here? The digit that changes is always moving down the line. Since there are infinite possible decimal places to move down to, the changing digit will always move down the line and, therefore, the changing digit will never go up the line, so the probability will never reach 0.004. "I have another proof that there is a limit to how small computer components will get." It is not at all implausible that you will think that you have proof. It is improbable, however, that you really have such proof. Before deciding that you do have proof, please take the time to prove you have proof, at least to yourself, readers. My argument that it is not proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get is that I can't find any proof because there is no existing proof to be found. I am not confident about this, but I am more confident that it has not been proved than it has been proved.Report this Argument Pro Actually, there is a limit to sizes of computer components because of how small transistors can get . Okay, let's back up here. Computers are made up of components and those components perform some functions like collecting data and processing it. Those components are made up of logic gates and those are made up of transistors. Transistors at its core are devices which block the entry of electrons. Well, the problem is that these transistors are going quantum. In the quantum world, physics doesn't work the same as it works here. Transistors cannot function because there is a quantum property called quantum tunnelling which does not allow the transistors to restrict the electron's movement, causing the entire computer to go bonkers While it is plausible and possible for computer parts to in the quantum level in the future but due to our minimal understanding of quantum physics,it is not possible for it to happen now or anytime in the near future. There you have it a proof which explains the exact property of physics which restricts the size of computer componentsReport this Argument Con I would like to welcome the Pro. Welcome. We've already got a transitor that is 1 nanometer long. (https://www.theverge.com...) Either way, the debate topic is not "Transitors will get smaller than they are now, right now or in the near future". The debate topic is "It is proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get." This means that you have not yet proved the actual topic and instead proved a strawman topic. I hold that it is NOT proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. Your job is to prove that it IS proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get. I hope that helps clarify things. To reiterate, I argue that It is NOT proved that there is a limit to how small computer components will get because, if it was proved, me, you or a reader who comments will have found that proof. Again, I am not confident about this, but if the voters chose one of our positions as being right, it would be best if they chose mine. It's been a pleasure having this debate. My regards to the Pro and readers.Report this Argument This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet. This round has not been posted yet.
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 3 years ago
Storing information, creating computers on the molecule level, appears to be the smallest technology scientists want to say may be possible (though currently beyond our means)-- can you think of building computers on a smaller scale?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
© 2021 Debate.org. All rights reserved.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.