Knowing truth means knowing all truth, and that's not possible.
(you are looking for papers about an speculation; either you find them, made by flatearthers, or you find them concerning a different question)
Not possible for a human being, not possible in a big-data system. In part for the amount of information, but mostly due to the incoherences in our perception, which make impossible for truth even to be formulated.
Remember that due to the explosion principle, a single false statement in a coherent set of propositions would make true=false [1]. In our current scientific knowledge, that is a fact (e.g. the multiple issues the big-bang theory has, or the incomprehensible results of quantum physics). Then, we can state that the ultimate conclusions regarding science would prove that false=truth.
In such case, what would be "a world of unrestrained truth", if we can't even determine what truth is? There are more arguments for that: Kant has shown that as subjects, we have learned to exist in a realm where everything ends in a tautology[2]; etc. In consequence, truth does not exist.
Then, your question needs to refer to "a world of unrestrained knowledge", where all people know every possible fact in the universe. Such speculation is more interesting, but that exceeds the scope of philosophy.
[1] (1)a=true=0; (2)b=false=1; (3)c=a+b; (4)c=a (the incoherent proposition); then, from (3) and (4), a+b=a so b=0, so, false=true); in a simple manner: if theory A, sustained by relativity, says that the universe has X years, sustained by quantum mechanics, says that the universe has Y years, then, either relativity is true and quantum mechanics is false or vice versa. Considering that both disciplines are currently valid for science, then, science includes facts equivalent to true=false. Seems a joke, but that's real. Scientists are not gods, and we're doing our best to find out truth.
[2] There's no ultimate rule that would prove the rest of the rules, so, we live in a tautology.
