Moore’s Law is a wonderful example of exponential growth in regards to the number of microprocessor transistors we can fit on a single circuit board. It is also an example of the necessity for us to change our logic moving into the future, which I will get to later. Back in 1965, Gordon Moore first hypothesized that the number of components per integrated circuit was doubling every 18 months (Wiki). Surprisingly, this trend has continued to the present where we can now fit over 2,600,000,000 microprocessor transistors on one integrated circuit. Our current methods of computing are still based upon the same logic that they always have been. The computer takes a stream of either 0’s or 1’s and interprets each of them one at a time; hence, it’s extremely beneficial to have more and more transistors. We will eventually reach a point where this will plateau, though, and we will be forced to accept our limitations of this style of computing or evolve a new brand of logic.
Quantum computing poses to be this leap in logic. Rather than using transistors to run the 0’s and 1’s, a single electron can be used to accomplish this task. An electron has many weird properties on the quantum level; however, and can be thought of as a magnet whose north end can be south simultaneously and vice versa for the “south” portion of the magnet. While transistors have binary possibilities, electrons tap into seemingly parallel quantum universes where they can be an infinite number different of possibilities.
As I was reading, Systems Thinking Made Simple by Derek and Laura Cabrera I was thinking of this difference in traditional and quantum computing as they discussed our needed evolution from “bi-valent versus multi-valent logics” (Cabrera, 128). They say, “We can think of bivalent logic as having two strong positions: right or wrong, on or off, guilty or not guilty, true or false, 1 or 0” (Cabrera, 128). Contrasting that to “multivalent logic that has more than two outcomes” (Cabrera, 128).
In science, we try to define something by what it is as specifically as possible. This reductionist method fails when we try to work with systems, though, and we end up defining something by what it is not. Bad is defined as by what is not good, efficient is defined as what is not wasteful, health is defined as what is not sick. Although defining something by what it is it takes more time, it is necessary to be competent systems thinkers.
References
Sorry for the late comment! I agree that the world, when put into binary, cannot be viewed scientifically. It is true that science deals with true and false, though it also addresses the potentially true and almost false. So, in order for binary to address all of the potential answers that the scientific method provides there would almost certainly have to be an infinite number of variables that can all be answered yes or no. Almost like a decision tree- with each answer leading to a new question, and so forth.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, just adding thought!
Posted by: Sam Krasnobrod | 04/21/2017 at 10:48 AM