Do brilliant minds converge on similar ideas?

[nschlaff]

I've heard of scientists who never knew each other converging on similar ideas, such as Newton and Gottfried both inventing calculus. Just a thought. Can't wait to see your thoughts .

 

[Bhagavat]

You have already demonstrated the point that great minds do independently arrive at similar conclusions.

 

[Etheri]

Or sometimes they don't. Einstein and quantum never got along.

 

[Vidi]

Convergence happens on all levels, it's just a question of quality of the ideas/thoughts. Small minded converge on their trite level, to each mind its operational level. I am more interested in timing of those ideas, synchronicity, and I have in mind outstanding thinkers, and even more interesting how such synchronicity spreads across different fields, like advent of new developments in photography coinciding with pointillism in art, etc.

 

[intpz]

Why can't two people think of a same thing?

I remember someone mentioning that I have made a few remarks similar to George Carlin around these forums, and I'm yet to watch his videos.

I've said more than once what supposedly some other guy said, and been called arrogant and something else for not giving them credit. Even though I have never heard of them and I frankly - I don't want to. Damn quoting S(?) assholes.

 

[Architect]

Or sometimes they don't. Einstein and quantum never got along.

Yes but his Nobel is actually on the Photoelectric effect which was the precursor to QM. It was the first time anybody quantized light. Intellectually he just wasn't able to bridge the gap to full QM with the later developments. Further his work in space time (gravity) was converged to by other scientists such as Lorentz. In this case there's probably little mystery, as the Michealson-Morley experiment was well known in the community, so a number of physicists were working on how to explain it and the ether itself (though it is unclear whether Einstein was aware of M-M. I think he probably was.)

Which explains the OP's premise I think. Convergence is natural, especially in scientific and technological fields. The opportunity for gain, whether monetary, fame, or whatever, is to the one who gets there first. In these fields as the boundary moves forward, there is always a window of opportunity to solve some problem or accomplish some task. So naturally a bunch of people will dogpile on it.

So people don't work on things that are before their time (except crackpots). For example, I'm not worrying about time travel, as we don't yet have the technology to manipulate gravity. When that technology is available you bet people will converge on it.

Interestingly, you know what is the necessary precursor to most technological and scientific advances? Take a guess first.

Spoiler

Measurement. Measurement technology comes first. Once we can measure something, that allows us to develop and exploit it. Recent examples are nano technology and DNA sequencing.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think it depends on the subject domain. Physics is probably likely to see that occur because there seems to be a large converging factor to understanding it. Politics, economics, and seeking answers to philosophical problems, however, can be quite varied. As it should be, imo, if you accept it's about defining the world to what one thinks and feels is best, even if only for themself, but also for other people.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yes. It's called Synchronicity.

 

[PhoenixRising]

It may be as simple as, great minds seek the truth. Since their ideas are derived from actualities, and they are likely using similar techniques to investigate, their observations would be similar if not the same.

 

[BigApplePi]

I've heard of scientists who never knew each other converging on similar ideas, such as Newton and Gottfried both inventing calculus. Just a thought. Can't wait to see your thoughts .

Oh great! A difficult Q. Probably good ideas require filling in a lot of stuff. The more one can fill out stuff (greatness), the more one is likely to eliminate the flaws and contradictions and get to the good idea. Wait a minute. What about bad ideas? Won't brilliant minds diverge from bad ideas? So to answer the OP: I'd say no. Wait on more minute. The OP said, "similar ideas." Does that mean each scientist has an idea, one similar to the other and we're asking if they converge? Hmm. Again no. I think they need not converge as each may have different styles of expression. I forget, but didn't Liebnitz use integrals while Newton didn't?