# Is it possible to quantify the aggregate sum of human knowledge? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183 "2007-10-27T02:21:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/1 "2007-10-27T02:21:09Z")
From [_Right Where You Are Sitting Now,_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tebbit) by the late Pope St. [(And/Or Press, 1982, pp. 30-32): > [@](#): > > I have found no better way of illustrating this mental quantum-jumping than some statistics developed by French economist Georges Anderla for the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in 1973. > > Anderla took as his unit of measurement the known scientific facts of the year 1 A.D. For vividness, I call this unit “one jesus,” using the name of the celebrated philosopher born that year. (I am here following the physical sciences where basic units are named after important individuals – e.g., the ohm, the volt, the farad, the ampere, etc.) > > How long did it take to double this accumulation of knowledge, to achieve two jesuses? According to Anderla’s estimates, it required 1500 years – until 1500 A.D. > > Before going any further, let us ask how long it took to arrive at one jesus. One way of estimating is to take the estimated age of homo sapiens, in which case it took 40,000 to 100,000 years (depending on which estimates one accepts – i.e., how one differentiates homo sap. from his closer relatives). > > How long did it take to double again and obtain _four_ jesuses? According to Anderla, it took 250 years, and we had four jesuses in our larder by 1750. > > Note also that, very shortly after 1750 A.D., the American Revolution occurred; the French Revolution occurred; the Mexican Revolution occurred; and all the “radical ideas” still being debated (democracy, the free market, socialism, communism, even anarchism) entered the intellectual scene. Monarchy began to collapse; the witch-hunts ended; the church declined; industrialism came to the fore. Circa 1780 both Benjamin Franklin in America and Condorcet in France proposed that science would eventually cure every disease and vanquish death – the first time in history anybody had thought of that. > > Obviously, the _quadrupling_ of knowledge between one A.D. and 1750 A.D. had unleashed a great deal of intellectual creativity and even some wild imagination. This seems inevitable to me. When educated persons have 100 facts for every 25 facts they had previously, they are bound to get some new ideas too. > > To continue with Georges Anderla’s statistics, the next doubling took only 150 years, and by 1900 A.D. humanity had eight jesuses in our information account. > > The next doubling took 50 years, and by 1950 we had 16 jesuses. (Between 1900 and 1950, there were two World Wars, fascism came and went, communism took over one-third of the world, a revolution in sexual behavior occurred according to Kinsey, the majority of intellectuals became overt atheists in the communist countries and covert atheists in the Christian countries, the age of radio drama came and went, cars replaced buggies and planes created “one world” travel-wise . . .) > > The next doubling took _only ten years,_ and by 1960 we had 32 jesuses. > > **A so-called Youth Revolution then occurred, happening simultaneously in all parts of the world.** > > The next doubling took _seven_ years, and by 1967 we had 64 jesuses. > > And the next doubling too six years; by 1973 (when Anderla completed his study) we have 128 jesuses. > > \ > > There is no reason to expect the acceleration stopped with the last estimate made by Anderla in 1973. All objective evidence (patents granted, scientific papers published, etc.) indicates the process is continuing. Thus, we almost certainly reached 256 j around 1978-79 and will be reaching 512 j in 1982, about the time this text hits the bookstores. > > In short, we are living in a mental transform space – Teilhard de Chardin’s noosphere . . . – that is, an omnidimensional halo expanding toward infinity in all directions. Oh wow, far out. Only . . . what method did Anderla use to **quantify** knowledge? The Blessed Wilson does not say; neither does the [url=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges\_Anderla](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Anderla)]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?_ ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/2 "2007-10-27T09:09:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/3 "2007-10-27T15:53:14Z")
Still, this Anderla apparently was an economist, and respected enough to be retained by the [OECD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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? ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/4 "2007-10-27T16:53:34Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/5 "2007-10-27T17:40:10Z")
1. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/6 "2007-10-27T19:55:28Z")
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.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=326599) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2007, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/7 "2007-10-27T22:16:52Z")
[QUOTE=ultrafilter] **BrainGlutton** , does that book of yours gives the title of Anderla’s 1973 paper? [/QUOTE] 'Fraid not. I might try finding it next time I’m near a university library. ---
**Author:** ![Shamozzle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shamozzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shamozzle)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/8 "2007-10-28T02:02:49Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/9 "2007-10-28T03:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] 42. [/QUOTE] Nah, just a sub-set of 42. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/10 "2007-10-28T03:35:18Z")
I’ve heard it said before that [Sir Humphry Davy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/11 "2007-10-28T05:17:04Z")
[QUOTE=Shamozzle] 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! [/QUOTE] Ah, but perhaps it’s an aymptotic curve (or bounded volume?), in which case we might determine a limit as T-\>infinity. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/12 "2007-10-29T05:41:22Z")
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](http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/summary.html). [Home page of study](http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/). I suspect that all the knowledge in the world at 0 AD could have fit into a couple of dozen bookcases at most. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/13 "2007-10-29T13:03:22Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] 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](http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/summary.html). [Home page of study](http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/). I suspect that all the knowledge in the world at 0 AD could have fit into a couple of dozen bookcases at most. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/14 "2007-10-29T17:17:33Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-to-quantify-the-aggregate-sum-of-human-knowledge/424183/15 "2007-10-29T18:04:34Z")
[QUOTE=FriarTed] 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? [/QUOTE] 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.