1
  1. Are there any papers/books/studies on the ramifications of a theoretical world of unrestrained truth, meaning no secrets? A part of the motivation for this question is the fictional show, Code Geass, where a character has the aim of utilizing supernatural forces to rebuild the world with lacking in secrets. It got me thinking about what such a world would actually be like, but I'm having a hard time comprehending it.

  2. Similarly, are there any sources that study the necessity of secrets in our existing world? For example: States (defined as entities that have a monopoly of violence over a certain area and group of people) have secrets which are necessary for their continued existence and security, corporations have trade secrets, and of course individuals have secrets.

Some speculation is available at the following thread but no specific sources were given: A world where nothing can be hidden. No lies, always truth

  • 2
    "Yes dear, that dress makes you look like a beached whale." I submit that a world without lies would be untenable in practice. – user4894 Oct 5 at 2:39
  • This sort of speculative imagining is not really about philosophy as understood on this site, in a more academic sense. Worldbuilding SE might be a better place to ask. – Conifold Oct 5 at 8:25
0

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.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.