Is it possible to quantify the aggregate sum of human knowledge?

From Right Where You Are Sitting Now, by the late Pope St. [(And/Or Press, 1982, pp. 30-32):

Oh wow, far out. Only . . . what method did Anderla use to quantify knowledge? The Blessed Wilson does not say; neither does the [url=Georges Anderla - Wikipedia]Wiki article](]Robert Anton Wilson[/url) on Anderla. Assuming we limit the definition of “knowledge” to “scientific facts,” how many microjesuses or nanojesuses are represented by the First Law of Motion or the atomic number of cesium? If we expand that to include technical knowledge, how many in the Roman arch or the Greek trireme? If we include cultural knowledge, are there more or fewer nanojesuses in Plato’s Republic than in the Odyssey?

I agree. For example, I’m sure we could have a long thread on whether or not the Theory of Relativity counts as one unit of knowledge, the Theory of Relativity; or if all it’s individual aspects count as individual chunks of knowledge. And then there’s the problem that all knowledge is not of equal importance; the exact height of Mt Whitney is less important than knowing about the Law of Conservation of Energy.

So, trying to quantify human knowledge consists of adding a poorly defined number of values, which themselves are poorly defined. We can safely say that we know more than we knew a hundred years ago, but I don’t think we can realistically say that we know, say, 13658 times as much as we knew a hundred years ago.

Still, this Anderla apparently was an economist, and respected enough to be retained by the OECD to do an official study; so it’s unlikely he was just pulling his figures out of his ass. But just how did he arrive at them?

BrainGlutton, does that book of yours gives the title of Anderla’s 1973 paper? I haven’t had any luck tracking it down just searching by author, and while a couple places do know that Georges Anderla published a paper in 1973, they don’t seem to have the title.

From what little information I’ve found I have a very vague idea as to how he might have approached the problem, but I’d definitely want to see specifics before saying anything about it.

Nothing substantial to add beyond a “me too” concerning a metric for knowledge. That exact question was my sticking point in a thread from 2005: There is no “Curve” in scientific progress.

'Fraid not. I might try finding it next time I’m near a university library.

And of course in the accounting of all human knowledge one would need to include the accounting process itself, which would already include the accounting process, etc…

Recursion is fun!

Nah, just a sub-set of 42.

I’ve heard it said before that Sir Humphry Davy was the last man who literally had all of the world’s known knowledge at his fingertips. The inventor of nitrous oxide, he was reportedly SO handsome that his lectures were filled to the brim with women who had come merely to swoon at him.

Ah, but perhaps it’s an aymptotic curve (or bounded volume?), in which case we might determine a limit as T->infinity.

In the year 2000, " The world produces between 1 and 2 exabytes of unique information per year, which is roughly 250 megabytes for every man, woman, and child on earth. An exabyte is a billion gigabytes, or 1018 bytes. Printed documents of all kinds comprise only .003% of the total. Magnetic storage is by far the largest medium for storing information and is the most rapidly growing, with shipped hard drive capacity doubling every year. Magnetic storage is rapidly becoming the universal medium for information storage." Cite. Home page of study.

I suspect that all the knowledge in the world at 0 AD could have fit into a couple of dozen bookcases at most.

But information != knowledge. A romance novel and one of Asimov’s popular-science books might be roughly the same length and, once digitally encoded, might come to roughly the same number of bytes of information, but that does not mean they contain the same amount of knowledge.

Does RAW take all this to the conclusion that the doubling will escalate until 2012 at which point there will be about 7 billions jesi or whatever the world’s population is then?

Not explicitly. Nor does he address the fact that the secrets of the universe are finite, and human science, given enough time, must eventually discover all of them.