Simultaneous Discovery

[The Introvert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

Most famous examples:
Theory of Evolution
Calculus

What do you guys think about this? The possibility of some sort of connection in human consciousness? Coincidence? Accidental collaboration, or thievery?

 

[Fukyo]

It doesn't strike me as strange. If something exists, more than one person should be aware of it.

 

[Architect]

Yes the history of discovery and innovation is lumpy, meaning it comes in clumps. I don't recall hearing a good theory for why that is. My theory, from my own small work in both research and development, is that technology is synergistic. For example, development and discovery in computing leads to same in biology, as the biologists can get all these new computing tools.

I take the word 'technology' in the broadest sense. Synergism in mindset - the Age of Reason, etc, can fulfill the same purpose. I mean that simply having a common belief that anything is possible through proper use of reason will do this.

 

[The Introvert]

It doesn't strike me as strange. If something exists, more than one person should be aware of it.

Well, by that logic, then wouldn't we all be aware of everything we will ever know right now? It's odd to me not that people are aware of something, it's odd that they are simultaneously proving that something's existence without knowledge of the other person. It happens more often than not to be just a coincidence.

 

[The Introvert]

Yes the history of discovery and innovation is lumpy, meaning it comes in clumps. I don't recall hearing a good theory for why that is. My theory, from my own small work in both research and development, is that technology is synergistic. For example, development and discovery in computing leads to same in biology, as the biologists can get all these new computing tools.

I take the word 'technology' in the broadest sense. Synergism in mindset - the Age of Reason, etc, can fulfill the same purpose. I mean that simply having a common belief that anything is possible through proper use of reason will do this.

Yes, this is a good point. Give great minds the same technology and the means to work on something and they are bound to think alike.

 

[Fukyo]

Well, by that logic, then wouldn't we all be aware of everything we will ever know right now? It's odd to me not that people are aware of something, it's odd that they are simultaneously proving that something's existence without knowledge of the other person. It happens more often than not to be just a coincidence.

No, my statement doesn't imply that everyone will be aware of it, it implies that if a certain phenomena exists it should be natural that more than one person becomes aware of it over time, because well, it exists, it's out there, so what's stopping two people of comparable intellect/research/other relevant resources from eventually becoming aware of its existence? Why should it be some mystical consciousness connection or fraud? I'm sure intellectual theft exists, but I don't think it denies what I'm talking about.

 

[Proletar]

I've thought about this as well and besides from pseudo-scientific bullshit that we are somehow telepathically connected, my conclusion is this:

Similar cultures. Take for instance the event of the light-bulb. Without electricity, there could be no study on the field of electronics. With the event of electricity however, people could develop that field of science. Some tried to find means of transportation through electricity, and some tried using communication, i.e. the telephone, which was also simultaniously discovered. Some tried to invent a source of light with this new knowledge of electricity, and one succeeded.

Discoveries are tools in the development of technology. When new discoveries hit the ether it sometimes creates a new field of science, and that makes different scientists race to exhaust that field. Development of technology, like the development of society, is not in any way bound to an initiating individual. Instead, we have a culture in common, with it's ups and downs and its own way of progressing. Without Newton, we would have the theory of gravity explained by someone else. With no Hitler (not a big fan of Hitler) we would have another leader for the Nazi-party instead.



Highly philosophical though.

 

[The Introvert]

No, my statement doesn't imply that everyone will be aware of it, it implies that if a certain phenomena exists it should be natural that more than one person becomes aware of it over time, because well, it exists, it's out there, so what's stopping two people of comparable intellect/research/other relevant resources from eventually becoming aware of its existence? Why should it be some mystical consciousness connection or fraud? I'm sure intellectual theft exists, but I don't think it denies what I'm talking about.

You didn't add that in your original post, though. You simply said:
"If something exists, then more than one person should be aware of it".

Surely we haven't discovered everything there is to know? I know I'm nitpicking here but it's in my nature, deal with it

 

[The Introvert]

I've thought about this as well and besides from pseudo-scientific bullshit that we are somehow telepathically connected, my conclusion is this:

Similar cultures. Take for instance the event of the light-bulb. Without electricity, there could be no study on the field of electronics. With the event of electricity however, people could develop that field of science. Some tried to find means of transportation through electricity, and some tried using communication, i.e. the telephone, which was also simultaniously discovered. Some tried to invent a source of light with this new knowledge of electricity, and one succeeded.

Ah yes, this is just a more thorough analysis of the answer Architect gave.

I would like to point out that many people succeeded in creating a light bulb; Edison is just the one that crooked his way into the patent with a less than superior model. I'm not a fan of Edison.

Without Newton, we would have the theory of gravity explained by someone else. With no Hitler (not a big fan of Hitler) we would have another leader for the Nazi-party instead.

Highly philosophical though.

And you say you don't like psuedo-science

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. How are we to know what would or would not happen if things had been different? Maybe the apple misses Newton's head and through some sort of butterfly effect wormhole we descend into a different series of events, ultimately changing the fate of the world! Or maybe nothing changes, and someone else takes his place in history.