World spec'mode

From the outset, we have discussed at length the needs that drive us to advocate for the long-term preservation of knowledge, but we have described this approach in terms that are ultimately rather vague. We have talked about “epistemic memory,” “modern Library of Alexandria,” “black box,” “project” to safeguard knowledge, etc. We have outlined, without going into detail, the different forms that traditional knowledge preservation centers can take: museums, libraries, archives, computer servers, and electronic media. We have touched on the distinction between knowledge media, a tangible object that can exist independently of the user, and knowledge itself. We focused primarily on the justifications for an epistemic memory project, whether it be the highly valuable nature of our body of knowledge, the potential threats to it and to our culture, or the main objectives of a large epistemic memory. From now on, we will need to be more precise in defining the contours of an epistemic memory: we need to describe how to centralize a body of knowledge, and thus discuss the potential difficulties of such a project, the measures to be implemented to ensure its preservation over a very long period of time, the means to ensure that the potential recipients of this memory will be able to decipher its content, the types of projects that can be implemented, the resources to be mobilized, and so on.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, let us once again ask ourselves the fateful question: what exactly are we talking about when we talk about a major epistemic memory project? Until now, we have used the term “epistemic memory” to describe minds without prejudging what such a project would look like. At best, we can imagine a kind of huge abstract database. Epistemic memory is above all a concept distinct from that of “collective memory” or “cultural memory.” Collective memory refers more to a set of information shared within a group, relating to historical events or a given narrative of the past, as an extension of individual memory. Collective memory is a concept that aims to make crucial information about the history of a given community accessible to as many people as possible, while cultural memory aims above all to preserve items, regardless of their level of vulnerability, which requires constant maintenance, made possible by heritage institutions (libraries, universities, museums, archives, etc.). All of this is therefore mostly a matter of education and heritage conservation. However, when we talk about epistemic memory, what we mean is the very long-term preservation of knowledge, which means limiting access to it in the present as much as possible to maximize the chances that this knowledge will be passed on to our descendants. With epistemic memory, the most important thing is the information itself, not the item that contains the information. And the fact that it is “epistemic” reflects the fact that science remains at the heart of this preservation, even though we have seen that the preservation of knowledge can also lead to the indirect preservation of our philosophical ideas and our culture in the broadest sense. Epistemic memory should be thought of as a “backup” for collective and cultural memory.

The fundamental function of an epistemic memory is to enable its recipients to reconstruct a vast body of knowledge without starting from scratch. In other words; the main objective is protecting this knowledge from potential setbacks to which the education system and heritage institutions may be vulnerable. This epistemic memory project can be compared to another type of project that already has a similar function: time capsules. A time capsule, to put it succinctly, refers to any message intended to be deciphered in the distant future, whether it be a message in a bottle, a space probe, a radio message sent into space, or quite literally a “hidden” capsule that is only to be opened after a very long time. Most time capsules are fairly simple and do not always contain a significant amount of information, but in recent years, a new type of capsule has emerged, containing encyclopedias, copyright-free works, DNA samples. Therefore, these time capsules have increasingly extensive content. Whereas “1.0” time capsules are primarily designed to be traces of those who created them, as a kind of challenge to the apparent eternity of the universe, these new “2.0” capsules aim to preserve scientific and philosophical knowledge, which is reminiscent of the main objective of an epistemic memory. Of course, not all “2.0” time capsules necessarily aim to protect knowledge in its entirety and tend instead to focus solely on knowledge perceived as “essential,” particularly the so-called “hard” sciences. Conversely, epistemic memory does not necessarily imply an artistic impulse like that of traditional time capsules, while the time frame envisaged for the preservation of knowledge is not necessarily as long as that of many time capsules: epistemic memory is required to survive a catastrophe that could span several generations, while some time capsules could remain intact for thousands or even millions of years. Nevertheless, there is a convergence between time capsules and epistemic memory: this convergence is the knowledge ark. The knowledge ark is therefore any project that consists of both preserving as much knowledge as possible for future generations (i.e., an epistemic memory) and safeguarding this knowledge for a very long time (i.e., a time capsule, a “3.0” capsule). From now on, when we talk about epistemic memory, we will implicitly be referring mainly to this variant of epistemic memory that constitutes knowledge arches.

From the main function of a knowledge arch, we can deduce three main constraints, which are the three axes around which such a project must be positioned:

*Constraint #1: as much data as possible must be preserved. We want our science to be preserved for future generations, which means that the scope of preservation must be as broad as possible. We want to save as much knowledge as possible, or even more basic raw data if necessary.

*Constraint #2: the data must be accessible. Beyond exhaustiveness, we must of course ensure that it is relatively easy for our descendants to access our knowledge, so that they are not completely helpless in the face of our preservation methods. 

*Constraint #3: Data must remain intact for as long as possible. Preservation means resistance to the passage of time, and therefore a response to all the natural, industrial, or political risks we mentioned earlier that could destroy knowledge. There may also be a balance to be struck with the accessibility of our knowledge, as too much ease of access could compromise it.

Each of these constraints hides all kinds of challenges (centralization, storage capacity, language, transmission, standardization of media, etc.) that we will address.