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

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.