Talk:Frank J. Tipler

message: Over at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler), we're considering whether the article might be best served by folding back into this, are there any thoughts from the editors working on this?  Your feedback would be welcomed. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the unhelpful bickering at the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, there was a general consensus to Merge. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good solution for the moment, we are now just facing the problem that this article isn't a biography, it discusses "theories by Frank Tipler". But short of splitting this into articles on the individual books (such as The Physics of Immortality (book)), I see no obvious way around this: this article was never a biography to begin with, and it has little or no potential to ever become one.  --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A fundamental problem is that Tipler's early work regarding Omega point theory (before he became obsessed with Christianity) is sometimes cited in serious Physics journals, while his later work that identifies Omega point singularities as "God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are rightly seen by the mainstream as fringe theory not worthy of comment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Wait, so turning an article into a redirect is an improvement? There's less content. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can locate some reliable secondary sources to fill out Tipler's bio, have at it. Certainly there must be news coverage or journalism about him that's been published in reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps later. We've still got to fix the stuff pointed at Omega Point (Tipler). The Omega Point dab, for one. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @TeleComNasSprVen: Sometimes improving things requires a big red pen.  Less bad content makes the article better overall, even if there is less resulting content.  Think of it as lifting the average.  The redirect was part of a c&p to bring the improved content into here, not just an outright excision. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. in spite of general appearances, Wikipedia doesn't actually have the main aim of just piling up as many gigabytes of text as possible. See also WP:DUE and WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Omega Point (redux)

message: I removed this as "not in citation given", but later found the page located at this url. However I feel the language that was used to describe an early paper of Tipler's as "selected as "[one of] the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005. Articles were selected [...] for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise...etc." is unnecessary vanity and unencyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's possible to descibe it was "noted" or something.  Sourced puffery is still puffery and it doesn't add anything that merely saying that they liked it doesn't. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tipler's paper found in list 

message: This is possibly the most useless fact I could come up with in connection to this topic, but the British dance band The Shaman did a track (called Re-evolution, IIRC. On the Boss Drum album and remixed on Different Drum) in the early 90's with Terence McKenna in which McKenna talks about an omega point of transcendence floating in hyperspace at the end of the universe throwing off reflections of itself into the past, illuminating mystics and visionaries. Make of this what you will, he also heavily advocates the use of hallucinogenic drugs as a means of exploring these things, but nonetheless it appears to be a reference to this concept.
::Mr Bungle, or specifically Trey Spruance, Tiplered its hat somewhat to Omega Point Theory in the lyrics to the track "None Of Them Knew They Were Robots".
::McKenna was most likely speaking of his own Novelty Theory. From reading the article, it's exactly the same literary genre as Tipler's theory (all scènes à faire?) just tricked–out differently for different fan bases maybe? McKenna's omega analog was : 
:::...McKenna was able to trace the effects of a "teleological attractor" throughout the course of human history using a fractal computer algorithm based on the mysterious King Wen sequence of hexagrams in the ancient I Ching. The  corresponds to periods of rapid progress and unprecedented ideas, like the Renaissance, versus those languishing in dogma and decline, like the Dark Ages. Plotting those graphically and the projecting  calculation  forward results in a  point, an asymptote of novelty, occurring near the end of the year 2012, (an impressive correspondence with the Mayan "long year"). Needless to say, it's impossible to predict what will transpire as the clock ticks down with novelty approaching infinity just prior to the event. Information theory would seem to link novelty epistemologically with randomness, chaos and irreversible entropy... on a scale that can only be described as "". Feeling the attractor here...
::McKenna was a writer, philosopher and ethnobotanist. I'll concede that his charming narratives of psychedelic visions might be found to advocate recreational hallucination. But, unlike pharmaceutical marketing campaigns, McKenna was never one to play anything "heavy" and I've yet to feel an urge to sip the Christmas tea.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly random 

message: As time permits, I'll be checking claims made in the article that were claimed to be sourced directly to primary sources. I've already found one example that made it sound as if David Deutsch had written material mostly in support of Tipler's theory, only to find that reliable secondary sources report the opposite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary sources per [[WP:PSTS]] needed for claims in article

message: A large chunk in the heaven article (which is a thoroughly sub-Wikipedia article), giving the Omega Point the same weight as world religions has been turned into a simple link there and the text pasted at the end of this article. Someone with more knowledge please edit/delete as appropriate. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: section from Heaven article brought back here

message: There appears to be a clear division in the work of Frank J. Tipler, a physical hypothesis of the singularity through peer reviewed journals, but then also a separate add-on that connects this with Christianity in his own books but not (it appears) through peer reviewed journals. Perhaps these should be treated separately and distinctly? User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is exactly the case. Some of Tipler's early work re Omega Point was published and cited in mainstream journals. Later work where he connects Omega Point to Christianity was ignored or published in fringe journals. We should not confuse the two. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division 

message: Something should probably be written about his positions as a Climate change denier, there are lots of sources (see google of Frank Tipler Global Warming). User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find much on climate change denial, mostly mentions in conspiracy lit, blogger comments, and a couple of minor news mentions stuck behind paywalls. It seems Tipler's views on climate change have not gained the attention of reliable independent sources. If they do, we could certainly include them in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Being that Prof. Frank J. Tipler has a usable brain, of course he is a "climate change denier". He regards empirical data instead of politics. That makes him a heathen and a heretic.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate change denialism 

message: You have attempted to disrupt this article for a long time now. Granted, you really hate Prof. Frank J. Tipler and his work. That's a given. You really hate the notion that God and the resurrection can be proven by standard physics. Okay, we get it already. But your attempts to disrupt this article are fundamentally dishonest. But then, you already know that. My point in pointing it out is that you have nothing to back up your Weltanschauung. All you have is wishes. I ask that you have some composure here, and have some decency.
The papers that Prof. Tipler has published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings exist. They exist. Predending that they don't exist isn't going to make your position stronger: it's merely going to make your position more deluded.
If living in delusion makes you feel comfortable, then I feel sad for you. But even if you somehow manage to construct a barrier around reality in order to insulate your mindset, reality still remains.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: To the antitheists

message: There appear to be a number of related articles to this which are given undue weight or are based exclusively on primary sources. e.g Final anthropic principle. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: List them here, or better yet at WP:FTN, and I'll have a look as time permits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed them on FTN. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Articles 

message: Please bear in mind that Jamiemichelle appears to be circumventing his block: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jamiemichelle User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good that he's circumventing his ban, but noticing his edit made me wonder if there any WP:RS that show Tipler's name as "Frank Jennings Tipler III"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any, that's why I removed it; his homepage doesn't seem to list it for example. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamie Michelle needs to stop edit warring on an article he's been topic banned on. But I also want to make sure we've got Tipler's name correct according to the majority of reliable sources. So far only one source gives it as "Frank Jennings Tipler III". If there were more, we might consider revising. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure if you can find reliable sources fire ahead (but the existence of more than one would be good in case it's a typographical or other error which originated from the above source). User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 01:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems he is openly flouting his topic ban, I've filed an incident notice instead. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Sockpuppet 

message: Tipler is one of the most prominent researchers in developing the Anthropic principle, which has been very important in the development of Multiverse#Anthropic_principle theory. I understand that many editors have a problem with Tipler, but I don't think his uncontroversial research should be omitted from his BLP. This BLP seems biased against him.--Jarhed (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never; base your reasoning on reliable sources not original research and when you have the reliable independent sources be WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropic principle 

message: Much too much of this article is sourced to Tipler himself. Of particular concern is:
#The fact that most of the biographical information is cited to him and his website
#That we have no third-party coverage whatsoever of his 'Quantum gravity and the theory of everything' & 'Extraterrestrial Beings Do Not Exist' claims.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel something is undue be bold. I've removed the 'Extraterrestrial Beings Do Not Exist' as this seems completely undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the majority of explanations of Tipler's theories remain primary-sourced to Tipler's own publications; individual editors have summarized what they feel was important rather than relying on secondary sources for such analysis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frank J. Tipler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044039/http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf to http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607132741/http://www.iscid.org/frank-tipler.php to http://www.iscid.org/frank-tipler.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank J. Tipler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101161611/http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf to http://genesis1.asu.edu/Tiplerreview.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: FWIW Shermer and Shermer's book are fine WP:RS for documentation on this pseudoscientific concept. That said, we have ungated sources such as  that we could source content to instead and make life easier for us all. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shermer is fine as a source 

message: Wikipedia doesn't really care if a blog on American Scientist magazine's website criticizes the definition.  It has its own policy, WP:PSCI...  —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The George Ellis source is one of the better ones, actually: written by a subject-matter expert, and published in a journal with editorial review standards. XOR'easter (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

text: IMHO Shermer qualifies as an "established subject-matter expert" on pseudoscience, in which case I would judge his e-skeptic posting as admissible for a layman-accessible explanation. That said, there are certainly arguments for trimming any detailed discussion of Tipler's theory as it isn't part of mainstream discourse. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Where are all the negative reviews of both theory and theorist???
This reads like a 60's "lovefest" for Prof. Tipler.
Cf: Wikipedia/Sarcasm. DrZooPewLah (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Is there a need to note that Ellis' being a Quaker before his being a system theorist? Is it necessary at all? De4ence (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaker