[ExI] immortal

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:12 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Would you agree that a CPU can't have a clock time be less than the time it takes for a bit to change?

No, I would not, partly due to potential vagaries as to what exactly
constitutes the "clock" that is timed.  Among other exceptions, I can
imagine CPUs that either work on substages of bits (where the bit is
what's seen outside), or - more likely - work on multiple bits in
parallel so the "clock" is when anything changes (e.g., one-eighth of
a bit change minimum if it's operating on 8 bits in parallel; reality
is likely to be far more than 8 in parallel).

> I think you would agree we can't exceed the density of a black hole.

Different black holes have different densities, so there is no "the"
density.  Put another way: some black holes exceed the density of
other black holes, therefore it is possible to exceed the density of
"a" (less dense) black hole.

> Would you at least agree, that absent any surprising new discoveries in physics, we can use our current understanding of physics to calculate some of the constraints that the best possible computers will be subject to, and these constraints apply regardless of how they're engineered?

No, for a broad enough definition of "possible computers" - given the
expanded definition of "computer" that the public will use over time,
as new things arise that don't fit into the traditional understanding
of how computers work (see my previous analogies to the
vacuum-tube-only era) but are used to accomplish the same task.