Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Moore's Law no longer holds. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Moore's Law no longer holds.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Empirical data from 2015–2024 shows transistor density gains have slowed dramatically below the historical doubling rate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intel, TSMC, and ASML have publicly acknowledged that sub-3nm scaling yields diminishing physical returns incompatible with Moore's original cadence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A law that systematically fails its predictive function in measurable, documented cases has ceased to hold by the standard criteria for empirical regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kuhn's account of paradigm shifts entails that technological forecasting laws are revised when anomalous data accumulates beyond a threshold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The semiconductor industry's pivot to 3D stacking, chiplets, and heterogeneous integration signals a structural departure from planar transistor scaling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When engineers abandon the architectural assumptions underlying a law to sustain performance gains, the original law is no longer operative even if outputs appear continuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is a physical lower limit to how small components can be made before they cease to function.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Exponential growth in a domain does not continue indefinitely merely because it has done so for some period.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A law that systematically fails its predictive function in measurable, documente...Empirical data from 2015–2024 shows transistor density gains have slowed dramati...Exponential growth in a domain does not continue indefinitely merely because it ...Intel, TSMC, and ASML have publicly acknowledged that sub-3nm scaling yields dim...
    +4 moreShow less
    Kuhn's account of paradigm shifts entails that technological forecasting laws ar...The semiconductor industry's pivot to 3D stacking, chiplets, and heterogeneous i...There is a physical lower limit to how small components can be made before they ...When engineers abandon the architectural assumptions underlying a law to sustain...

    Similar

    Savitch's Theorem holds86%Keynes's Principle of Limited Independent Variety holds82%The Nondeterministic Time Hierarchy Theorem holds78%Le Grand holds that the Divine Will and Intellect are one.74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: it-moral-values
    View source passageHide passage
    …there is, after all, a limit to how small things can get before they simply melt. Moore’s Law no longer holds. Just because something grows exponentially for some time, does not mean that it will continue to do so forever… (Floridi, 2016).
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit