Lives and Death of Moore's Law

[eSa]

Interesting article about Moore's law and what's wrong with it

http://firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/index.html

You can found all the reasons why NV30 is late and more !

 

[Nagorak]

A scientific theory doesn't become a law until there is irrefutable proof... Moore's "Law" doesn't count as being a law by the even the most generous interpretation. At best it's a hypothesis, at worst it's just sheer BS.

Looks like an interesting article though.

 

[RoOoBo]

A scientific theory doesn't become a law until there is irrefutable proof... Moore's "Law" doesn't count as being a law by the even the most generous interpretation. At best it's a hypothesis, at worst it's just sheer BS.

Looks like an interesting article though.

None thinks that Moore's Law is a law or even a hypothesis. It is just a self-apointed self-fullfilling indication that the microprocessor industry has been more or less following in the few last decades. You could even say that Moore's Law is just another marketing BS, because those were the only ones interested in that this hypothesis/law existed.

 

[DemoCoder]

There is no such thing as "irrefutable proof" of any scientific law. Scientific laws (hypotheses, theories) are valided by the induction of empircal evidence. This process never ends. We only get more certain about our theories, but never 100%.

Moreover, the map is not the territory. There is no such thing as a "particle" or a "wave". These are words, abstractions, and concepts we have assigned to phenomena we perceive, but to label something is to circumscribe and limit what it really is. This leads millions of people to think of electrons as little green balls that orbit around proton balls, or of fields as lines stretching through space, etc.

That's one reason why Quantum Mechanics is so confounding, because the interpretations that fall out of the math defy our classical intuition of balls, sticks, and lines. So there are numerous interpretations of what's going on, but all of them fail to capture what's really going on.

Irrefutable proof only exists for closed formal systems. There is no irrefutable proof that the speed of light is constant, or that the sun will rise tommorow. We have good reason to believe these theories, but there is no proof that I can't step inside my bathroom and enter a new region of space with different laws (other than the fact that I'd probably die doing so)

 

[BoddoZerg]

Moore's Law is every bit as much a hard scientific law as Murphy's Law.

 

[Entropy]

Moore's Law is every bit as much a hard scientific law as Murphy's Law.

No way.
Murphy's Law is a Higher Truth

Entropy

 

[Dio]

That's one reason why Quantum Mechanics is so confounding, because the interpretations that fall out of the math defy our classical intuition of balls, sticks, and lines. So there are numerous interpretations of what's going on, but all of them fail to capture what's really going on.

I don't think the concepts in quantum mech are that tough to handle. They are brain-defying, but compared to most other deep branches of physics it's not that much of a leap. The real reason quantum mech is confounding is the mind-boggling difficulty of the maths. So I probably found it easy because with QM there's no point in teaching anything but the most basic of the math.

Or, to put it another way, anyone could get their head around the concepts, but you have to be very, very smart to do the math.

Everything else you said is spot on though

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Is QM math harder than fractions? Those things killed me back in grade 3.

 

[KimB]

Bah, I didn't think QM math was that hard. Tensor math, now that's hard stuff. The hardest physics class I've taken to date was Continuum mechanics, which deals with stresses and strains in solids and fluids, as well as wave propogation (We did sound in solids and fluids, as well as things like ocean waves and simplified models of air flow around a wing). Compared to this, Quantum Mechanics is a breeze, though I'm sure it'll get harder once I get to Quantum field theory (Continuum mechanics is essentially the prerequisite for that course...).

 

[Entropy]

Actually, once the QM theory was done with, I just crunched 'em numbers. The actual practical problems have never involved much math, just getting the model to sufficient quality to yield useful results, and still have enough computing power to get the job done.
With O(n^6+) algorithms, that is a bit of a problem.

Moore's law moves very slow indeed in comparison to that. Problem sizes increase at a frustratingly slow rate.

Entropy

 

[V3]

Didn't find QM or Tensor to be all that difficult, but I still don't like them.

But I don't understand Moore's Law at all. Does Moore's Law sets the goal too low or is it reasonable ?

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Is Moore's Law really a self fulfilling prophecy? Do companies expend whatever R&D resources are necessary to maintain such pace because they are expected to?

 

[DemoCoder]

I didn't say the QM math was hard, it's actually quite easy. In QM it's easy to crunch the equations and get your result. Interpreting what's actually happening is what's non-intuitive. That's why there's 7+ different interpretations to QM and huge arguments between philosophers of science over which one makes more sense.

 

[Nagorak]

There is no such thing as "irrefutable proof" of any scientific law. Scientific laws (hypotheses, theories) are valided by the induction of empircal evidence. This process never ends. We only get more certain about our theories, but never 100%.

Moreover, the map is not the territory. There is no such thing as a "particle" or a "wave". These are words, abstractions, and concepts we have assigned to phenomena we perceive, but to label something is to circumscribe and limit what it really is. This leads millions of people to think of electrons as little green balls that orbit around proton balls, or of fields as lines stretching through space, etc.

That's one reason why Quantum Mechanics is so confounding, because the interpretations that fall out of the math defy our classical intuition of balls, sticks, and lines. So there are numerous interpretations of what's going on, but all of them fail to capture what's really going on.

Irrefutable proof only exists for closed formal systems. There is no irrefutable proof that the speed of light is constant, or that the sun will rise tommorow. We have good reason to believe these theories, but there is no proof that I can't step inside my bathroom and enter a new region of space with different laws (other than the fact that I'd probably die doing so)

Yeah, you're right. I realize nothing is "irrefutable", I guess that was probably a poor choice of words.

All the same that article pretty much shows how Moore's Law is nothing but Marketing BS. It's not hard for something to remain "true", when you not only keep changing what it means, but also warp the facts to fit the equation.

 

[Nagorak]

Moore's Law is every bit as much a hard scientific law as Murphy's Law.

 

[Sage]

hey, i was able to understand the concepts of QM before i could do all of the math. but then, i invented multiplication when i was about 4 and basic algebra by the time i was 5. i also believe i have a higher understanding of the existance of the universe on the planes of space and time. but thats what happens when you find out your IQ of ~155 is not only considered "above average" but rather "genious" oh, and spelling is NOT something i have as much a grasp on.... i guess thats because IT DOESNT EVEN FOLLOW THE LAWS OF CHAOS!

 

[Fred]

Anyone who *thinks* they truly understand quantum mechanics is either profoundly delusional, a singular genius, or just hasn't thought about it enough.

Everyone can plug and chug through the equations and formalism. (Thank god it is soo easy actually, Physics would be umanagable if QM wasn't so simple), but there's just something really, really bizarre going on if you look at things too closely.

Quantum field theory, while mathematically far more complex than the 1st year quantum mechanics class, actually isn't as bad to visualize.

Unfortunately its wrong, and only an 'effective' theory. It can't possibly be the truly 'correct' theory. You can see it in the way they cut corners.

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Genuis in the real world is something special and IMHO not easily quantified. In the world of multiple choice abstract reasoning tests it is, I believe, just a shorthand for 2 standard devs above the norm

 

[fbg1]

According to Gordon Moore, the press dubbed his observation "Moore's Law", not himself or any other scientist or scientific body. Since the press deems it a Law, then it must be one, right?

http://www.intel.com/update/archive/issue2/feature.htm

I first observed the "doubling of transistor density on a manufactured die every year" in 1965, just four years after the first planar integrated circuit was discovered. The press called this "Moore's Law" and the name has stuck.

 

[WaltC]

Irrefutable proof only exists for closed formal systems. There is no irrefutable proof that the speed of light is constant, or that the sun will rise tommorow. We have good reason to believe these theories, but there is no proof that I can't step inside my bathroom and enter a new region of space with different laws (other than the fact that I'd probably die doing so)

You mean irrefutable proof can exist only for abstract systems--which I would agree with. However, in light of being considered a fact, irrefutable proof is almost never required (unfortunately.) Issues like evolution, for instance, are not facts, but theories. Nevertheless, the popular culture considers such theories to be facts (just as the most prestigious universities in the world once taught that the earth was flat.) This is not to comment on my personal beliefs--but merely to state that the data both evolutionsists and creationists use can be interpreted as positive support for either position. Neither evolution or creationism come from the data--they are interpretations of the data accumulated to date.

So, it's not so much that irrefutable proof is required to make a thing a fact within a particular culture at a particular time--it's rather belief of certain postulates or theories by a major portion of the population which earns these postulates and theories the designation of "fact." Many things considered "fact" 50 years ago are no longer considered such today, and likewise in 50 years the same will happen to a portion of the body of knowledge we consider "factual".

Moore's "law" is just such a fact. There is actually little or much empirical data to support it, depending on your point of view, but nevertheless many people in our society take it as a given. IE, they believe what the technology priests are chanting without ever fully understanding it or feeling a need to understand it (ostensibly because of their faith in the "progress of technology.")

Basically, in my view, "Moore's law" is a marketing aphorism which hopefully will continue to work its magic so that we can all remain employed for awhile longer. Other than that, though, I see little value in it, and I often wonder why more people don't ask, "Who the heck is Moore and who gave him a crystal ball?"...