Conjecture...

[wossname]

How much information is there in the world?

I mean known information, IE written down either in books or on disc etc.

Preferably expressed in bytes.

I reckon its probably quite a lot but I'd have no idea how to start calculating. I'd be happy with a figure accurate to an order of magnitude +/-. :D

[Acidic]

OK well, the net alone is several 1000 terabytes (I'm probably waaay underestimating its size). Then there must be 10 times this amount in books, newspapers, magazines and other publishings.

How much can the human brain hold? multiply that by 6000000000.

I hope we're exluding what animals know, as it is mainly instincts and memories anyways.

This will lead to A LOT of duplication of info though.

Then there are also the 100s of forms of storing info which I haven't mentioned.

[wossname]

So it wouldn't fit on a floppy?

[Acidic]

doubt it, sorry

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

Originally posted by wossname
So it wouldn't fit on a floppy?

A 'nano-floppy', perhaps. ;)

[Osiris]

are you guys talking about a floppy that is labeled "All the information in the whole world!"?
I found it on my way to school once, i put it in my bag, then threw it on the table next to where my cat eats, I haven't checked it, hope it's still there. :eek:

[alkatran]

I'll admit there's a lot of data stored on the internet. But how much of that is actual "information" and not just some 13 year old girl going on about her day...

[Acidic]

That's still info. Pointless info, but nevertheless info. A bigger issue is the huge amount of duplication of data. There must be millions of news websites, all covering the same topics.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by wossname
How much information is there in the world?




By attempting to calculate the amount of information in the world, you are adding to the information. Therefore, you cannot reach an answer.

[Acidic]

Originally posted by mendhak
By attempting to calculate the amount of information in the world, you are adding to the information. Therefore, you cannot reach an answer.

good point, but if you estimate the total information, then estimate the amount your estimation is adding, you'd get a rough estimation.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by Acidic
good point, but if you estimate the total information, then estimate the amount your estimation is adding, you'd get a rough estimation.

But isn't the amount you're adding increasing as you add up your estimate? (Unless you're going for a one-shot estimate).

Also, if we were to add the amount our estimation is adding (your way), we're still adding something, which needs to be estimated. And added.


bwahhhahah :afrog:

[Acidic]

I did originally mean for a one-shot-estimate. but I think that is impossible. Even this discussion is adding the the estimate, but then the size of the database can be found to the nearest byte quite easily.

I give up, you win. the errors would be too large. I did actually know this from the start though.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by Acidic
I did originally mean for a one-shot-estimate. but I think that is impossible. Even this discussion is adding the the estimate, but then the size of the database can be found to the nearest byte quite easily.

I give up, you win. the errors would be too large. I did actually know this from the start though.

No, actually, if we go for a one-shot-estimate, you would be right, if we were to allow for errors.

We can simply say, X amount, +/- 0.5X (to be on the safe side)

How do you write the +/- symbol, btw?

[Acidic]

don't know how to write it. isn't there that forum tool somewhere which allows you to do stuff easier, maybe that'll show you how.

[kedaman]

information is relative

[mendhak]

Originally posted by kedaman
information is relative

I hate my relatives. :(