Talk:Omega Point

message: A discussion is occurring over at Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler) in which we attempt to fix it up and maybe move it somewhere.  It has been anticipated that the improved article may not justify its own page and I wondered whether it would be appropriate to (re-)merge into here or whether it might belong under the Frank J. Tipler article.  The Tipler OPT seems quite distinct from other uses of Omega Point so is this maybe an inappropriate place to merge it into?  I'd welcome some feedback on this. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  For now, I'll update the redirect and will look to improving this section here when I have a moment.  By way of informing editors here, the consensus was to merge the other article into the author's page. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that Tipler's stuff should be stowed away into the article dedicated to its creator, but disagree in regard to Teilhard's concept of the Omega point. The same kind of "merger" was proposed for the Timewave zero article. In the result, Timewave zero was redirected to 2012 phenomenon without any merger, i.e., was, in effect, deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.15.52 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I suggest leaving this article as a separate article, It's a concept which has become a cultural meme, and I think a very pertinent one.--109.151.214.30 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Omega Point (Tipler)]] (redux) 

message: Hi! I read the rest of this article with interest, having read some Teilhard de Chardin years ago. However, the section on "The timing of the Omega Point" strikes me as original research and employing a crystal ball. The sentence "That moment is coming apace and hastening:" is obviously unverifiable and irredeemably prospective. The sources used for the following items are dubious: no common methodology, no real data, and in the case of the last one, ridiculous and unsupported. The following quote also strikes me as tangentially related at best.
Unless somebody wants to clean it up, it's my intention to prune the section back the first sentence, which is the only one I'd consider properly encyclopedic. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research, crystal ball? 

message: I don't know who wrote this, but it is clearly entirely original research with no basis in science even though it addresses the topic as that it were unequivocally true and accepted.  However, anyone can see that it is a bunch of nonsense, with no indication that there is the slightest bit of controversy as to whether or not it's actual science (as it charades to be) or a sloppy ontological argument shoving in terms from actual science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.6.92 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who wrote this either, but it isn't original research. It's a summation of the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Frank Jennings Tipler. I also don't agree that "anyone can see it is a bunch of nonsense." Also this is not purporting to be a science article, rather futurology/philosophy.--109.151.214.30 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly a lot of nonsense, the article does not bother to include any evidence and is full of wishful thinking. This is more like religious propoganda. Smk65536 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

text: It is clearly a lot of nonsense. Agreed. It is v.poorly contrived original research with zero support. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: This article does not have a neutral point of view, instead talking as if Omega Point Theory is correct, rather than having sentence structures such as "According to Omega Point Theory, ..." Omega Point Theory is just that, a theory that is not known to be correct or to be incorrect, so the article should remain neutral as to whether the theory is correct. I added a "NPOV" tag to the article and it is fine with me if someone removes that tag as long as they first clean up the sentence structures throughout the article to indicate that the statements are not statements of fact but rather statements of what the Omega Point Theory PROPOSES to be correct. I also added the "Original Research" tag because of the numerous complaints of original research by the other people who have already commented on this talk page about original research in this article. --Yetisyny (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Original Research problems 

message: Article certainly needs work in general, but as someone interested in this topic, I was very disappointed to see that there was no mention whatsoever of the Time Cube.  This seems like a very grave omission -- I do hope that future edits will include at least mention of a conceptual framework that is surely closely related to the one delineated in the current article.  StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being sarcastic, right? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh, Poe's Law, always strikingly relevant in the post-fact era. StrangeAttractor (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I think there's an issue in Wikipedia with articles like this on very obscure subjects that are primarily written by advocates. They are so far outside the mainstream, that there is no mainstream to ensure the article has an objective POV (I have issues with the notion of a purely NPOV article on subjects that are not hard science, but there certainly is such a thing as an attempt at a balanced POV).  So articles like this are written only by people who hold the subject as article of faith, because the subject is so obscure, no one feels confident enough to provide a counter-point, or indeed, even to nominate the article for deletion (and I'm generally not a fan of deletion for any article).  But when reading something like this, I'm disappointed to find that there's not a single indication to contradict my paranoid feeling that the article is so devoid of objective reality that it might be written by an enthusiastic cult member, or even just one particular monomaniacal schizophrenic.  Show me how this concept has been played out and discussed in the greater culture in the article and I might feel otherwise.  And without a doubt -- not least for its huge cultural familiarity -- time cube belongs in Wikipedia.  That's something I feel we can all discuss.  -- StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Pretty much all you need to know is here: time cube. Enjoy.  StrangeAttractor (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Omission: Discussion of Time Cube 

message: A editor recently removed Time Cube from the "See Also" section. It has since been restored, but I would like to open the discussion to see if we have consensus to remove Time Cube from the article.
I went to http://timecube.com/ to see if they are indeed related, here are some quotes:
:"The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar. Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults..."
:"Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies."
:"When   Do  Teenagers  Die? Adults Eat Teenagers Alive, No Record  Of  Their Death."
Time Cube itself is clearly not relevant to the content of this article. If it is only being included to show that religious beliefs are unprovable, I think it should be removed. Time Cube has no notability, and including a pseudoscience in an article on religious belief to show they are both unprovable seems like an extreme case of original research.
There would be better ways to convey the message that religious beliefs are unprovable, such as changing the lead to "...religious belief that theorizes the universe is evolving towards a maximum level of complexity and consciousness" or adding a section to discuss the scientific reception of the religious belief. Abierma3 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I went ahead and removed Time Cube. Wikipedia distinguishes between obvious pseudoscience, questionable science, and alternative theoretical formulations. Obvious pseudoscience consists of "theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." Questionable science consists of "theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Thus, including Time Cube as a part of this article unduly classifies Omega Point theory as obvious pseudoscience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abierma3 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly time cube has enough notability to warrant a non-stub sized wikipedia article. "obvious pseudoscience, questionable science, and alternative theoretical formulations" is this argument relevant? It does not include religious beliefs. Time cube has it's religious aspects, "Ray refers to himself as being godlike with a superior intelligence". This article refers to "evolution of human intelligence" and becoming "transcendent". Both articles also deal with "metaphysical ideas". Smk65536 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that policy relevant because if you read the text I quoted, Wikipedia says Time Cube is obvious pseudoscience. Omega Point is not obvious pseudoscience. This means that associating Time Cube with this article unduly classifies Omega Point as obvious pseudoscience. Even if Time Cube has religious aspects, does this mean we should include Time Cube on every religious article in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Then if the only reason you want to include Time Cube is because they both are "metaphysical ideas," why not just include the article in Category:Concepts in metaphysics? By your logic, we would also have to mention each of the 127 pages in Category:Concepts in metaphysics because they also deal with "metaphysical ideas." Abierma3 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  TC is clearly irrelevant and should be removed, as it has been William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Cube 

message: Abierma3 you insist that this article has something to do with the scientific concept of evolution, but clearly it does not. "Omega Point must exist even before the universe's evolution" "evolution of human intelligence" this is comppletely meaningless. "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations". There is no such thing here. Smk65536 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific concept of evolution is the underlying driver that allows the universe to reach the maximum level of complexity in Omega Point theory. What do you mean by "completely meaningless?" I recommend reading Teilhard's The Phenomenon of Man: "Considered Pierre Teilhard de Chardina's 'Magnum Opus,' this book shows the convergence of the cosmos from simple elements to the complex nervous systems of human beings. Teilhard then argues that evolution has not stopped with the creation of human beings, but is now in the process of converging the human mass (like atoms and cells before them) into a higher complex arrangement, this time on a planetary scale. All along the way, this evolutionary process has revealed itself to be one that proceeds along an axis of complexity and consciousness." That is the book's summary, and notice the explanation based on evolution. Specifically, Book Two: Life thoroughly discusses evolution's relevance to OPT, please read. Clearly, evolution is essential for the Omega Point concept, and that considering The Phenomenon of Man was voted one of the "Best Spiritual Books of the Twentieth Century," there is certainly a relationship between science and religion here. For these reasons, the "Religion and Science" category is completely appropriate. Abierma3 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have not addressed my concern what any of this has to do with "Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations". How is "converging the human mass" "this time on a planetary scale" related to evolution? What is being inherited here, what traits? "the universe's evolution" is completely meaningless in the context of evolution as any such grand claim would have to make the evolutionary mechanism very explicit. Using scientific words without regard to their meaning is not science. Smk65536 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is thoroughly discussed in The Phenomenon of Man Book Two: Life, please read.Abierma3 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is up to you to provide the evidence, not me to go through a book you point me to. Smk65536 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, you seem to only consider part of that sentence, look at the full sentence: "Teilhard then argues that evolution has not stopped with the creation of human beings, but is now in the process of converging the human mass (like atoms and cells before them) into a higher complex arrangement, this time on a planetary scale." The biological evolution that lead to "the creation of human beings" is essential to the religious aspect of OPT, as Teilhard believes this evolution will not just stop with humans, but will continue on evolving until eventually reaching the complexity he associates with the Christian parousia. Abierma3 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you still fail to address the concern of how this "religious evolution" is a part of the scientific process of evolution, i.e. what are the traits, what is inherited, what is the mechanism. Throwing the word around is not science. Niether is simply acknowledging human evolution good enough. Smk65536 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree, whatever "evolution" this article is talking about does not appear to be the scientific one. Smk65536 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Seems irrelevant. One person's attempt to understand the Bible and evolution. Not really about Omega Point as far as I can see. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is relevant. This "one person" was a leading evolutionary biologist, notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, making him a credible source on what is and isn't scientific evolution. It is directly relevant to Omega Point, as he references it specifically per the quote "Teilhard, extrapolating from the past into the future, envisaged the process of human convergence as tending to a final state, which he called 'Omega Point,' as opposed to the Alpha of elementary material particles and their energies." Based on this evidence, Omega Point clearly belongs in the "Religion and Science" category. Abierma3 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "reconcile the supernatural elements in Christianity with the facts and implications of evolution" giving religious interpretations to facts of nature is not science at all, no more than beleiving in sun gods. The quotes alspo say nothing that this "omega point" religious belief is a part of the scientific process of evolution. Also, since apparently The Phenomenon of Man was introduced to the English-speaking world by Sir Julian Huxley, there is a certain bias here. Smk65536 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is for articles with a relationship between religion and science. If is was supposed to be science alone with no relationship to religion, the category would be "Science" instead. A reconciliation of "supernatural elements in Christianity with the facts and implications of evolution" constitutes a relationship between religion and science. Abierma3 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On that one point I agree with you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: But how does one know that this religious belief is indeed talking about evolution concretely rather than throwing words in the air? Julian Huxley is intimately tied to this religious belief, since he introduced it to the english speaking world, we can expect all sorts of bias. The examples I gave above are clearly unrelated to evolution.Smk65536 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent of the beliefs and understanding of Abierma3 or Huxley or anybody else, and independent of whether or not OP even makes sense (which I doubt), OP is at least partly, according to some (Tipler), about religion and science. Of course, that is a very minor point. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a leading evolutionary biologist pointing out "the facts and implications of evolution" in a religious theory is biased, as it doesn't matter whether he ultimately supports or criticizes the theory, just the mere fact that he acknowledges the theory has these facts and implications of evolution is sufficient for what we are discussing. I would disagree that he is "intimately tied" to the religious theory considering he states that he finds "it impossible to follow him all the way" and merely recognizes "the positive value of [Teilhard's] naturalistic general approach." It seems like a credible source on the matter to me. Abierma3 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that this appears in the introduction and that he introduced this religious belief to the english speaking world is more than enough evidence of his intimate ties. "it impossible to follow him all the way" could indicate his doubts on whether this religion is talking about evolution or not. Smk65536 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he makes it clear from the quotes I have provided that the theory is talking about evolution. Abierma3 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes it clear that he is not quite sure about how this religion is related to evolution. Smk65536 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? I have stated all the evidence needed for my argument, so please explain rather than simply deny. Abierma3 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Though many scientists may, as I do, find it impossible to follow him all the way in his gallant attempt to reconcile the supernatural elements in Christianity with the facts and implications of evolution," This shows that the relationship is unclear to Sir Julian Huxley. It's surprising that even a promoter of the religion fails to follow it's arguments. Smk65536 (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether he ultimately supports or criticizes the theory is irrelevant. The fact that he acknowledges the theory takes the facts and implications of evolution and attempts to reconcile them with religion is what matters here. Abierma3 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you are talking about. The entire section has been focused on whether or not the article belongs in the "Religion and Science" article. One editor refuses to believe that prominent scientists have acknowledged that Teilhard takes the facts and implications of scientific evolution and applies it to religion in his OPT, even when presented with direct evidence (direct quotes of a leading evolutionary biologist confirming). All discussion regarding this matter is relevant. Abierma3 (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't believe what your saying Abierma3. Evolution and religion are two separate lines of study. A scientist might believe in religion and evolution, but that doesn't join the two. What you are seemingly doing is trying to establish scientific principles to justify / propagate some particular religious point of view. Based on reductionism alone, clear disproves some god, because evidence for the deity's existence is based on metaphysics and faith. This Omega point is a contrivance, that is neither well accepted not notable. Like the quote I deleted, the quote had absolutely nothing to do with the topic - except person theory by you that it was somehow obtusely linked. IMO, this whole article should be removed or joined into other philosophical pages. Much of your alleged 'importance' is actually what is irrelevant. Furthermore, the article does not really define 'Omega point' other than a fanciful twist, where the discussion here strays far from the article itself - which is  Isambard Kingdom point. (From your general edit warring here, nonsensical replies and irrelevant responses, any WP:NPOV is impossible.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is on whether or not the article belongs in the category "Religion and Science." I have provided evidence for why it does. I agree that evolution and religion are two separate lines of study, but Teilhard's OPT combines the two, thus forming a relationship between science and religion. Abierma3 (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Makes sense, dressing up this omega point religion with scientific jargon does not make this remotely relevant to science, any more than astrology or roman sun gods. Somehow Abierma3 believes that one of biggest promoters of this religion's words is to be taken as truth. The omega point related religions are "masterpieces of pseudoscience" after all. Smk65536 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided evidence that Omega Point takes the "facts and implications of evolution" and applies them to religion, so it is not just dressed up with "scientific jargon." The person that pointed this out was a leading evolutionary biologist, which means he is highly credible. Abierma3 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly are stating unsupported rubbish, probably justifying your own point of view and nothing by citations or the facts. By your discussions here, it is likely you are promoting and paralleling some of the fables of Intelligent Design - confusing the reader to promote a link between science and religion – where in reality, nothing exists. This page IMO should be headed towards rapid deletion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided facts and sources, now if you are claiming one of the leading evolutionary biologists is "unsupported rubbish," do you have any credible sources that supports this? It seems you have provided a lot of opinion, but no sources. Abierma3 (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make me laugh. The words of a leading promoter of the religion attempting to brainwash others with it? And your source is so conveniently placed in the religious book's introduction. It appears that we have a consensus on this issue now. On another note, I too support rapid deletion. Smk65536 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus whatsoever for removing this category. I have yet to see a single sources from those that believe this article does not belong in the category "Religion and science." Abierma3 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: The article seems to have an over representation of the viewpoints and needs more information regarding the history of the topic. This article could benefit from an expansion of the background information regarding the history of the Omega Point and the originator Teilhard. It seems that each subsection only briefly scratches the surface of the subject described, then leaps to a new subsection without finishing the construction of the context, its validity, and presentation of all of the facts. Each scientific theory is presented in a single sentence or two, whereas the opportunity to explore these theories in depth and find their realistic relevance is unfulfilled. Also, beyond theory, there could be more of a focus on the scientific nature of the Omega Point and its origin in empirical evidence.
:I'm not sure what you mean by empirical evidence; it's well-sourced that Tipler's Omega Point is pseudoscience. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what "personal research" means in this context, the content appears to me to be straightforwardly sourced. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: As is already currently stated in the article, "'The Phenomenon of Man'... has been dissected by astrophysicists and cosmologists to be a theological or philosophical theory that cannot be scientifically proven." Between this and the statements about Tipler's work, I don't think there's much more to say about the scientific reception of the Omega Point. Even the accelerating expansion of the Universe appears to be something that only Tipler seems to care about; if we can't find any other sources on whether the Omega Point does or doesn't accord with modern astrophysical models such as the accelerating expansion of the Universe nor modern mainstream eternal inflation models, it probably means that nobody cares, which means that Wikipedia shouldn't care either.Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above poster. This article does not need a separate scientific evaluation/reception/criticism section. I do think it might help to expand on the sentence in Tipler's paragraph: "However, scientists such as Lawrence Krauss have stated that Tipler's reasoning is erroneous on multiple levels, possibly to the point of being nonsensical pseudoscience.[13][14][15]" If the article is saying scientists found the reasoning erroneous on multiple levels, it would be helpful to know what the "multiple levels" are. Abierma3 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added to the main article, Frank_J._Tipler#The_Omega_Point_cosmology, sourced to Shermer: "While much of the physics in Tipler's Omega Point work is correct, scientists resoundingly reject Tipler's claim that the laws of physics require a conscious observer in the future light-cone of every spacetime point. Scholars are also skeptical of Tipler's argument that if an immortal entity with advanced technology exists in the future, such a being would necessarily resemble the Judeo-Christian God". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Evaluation

message: The band, Shriekback, and lead singer, Barry Andrews refers to the statement, “Everything that rises must converge,” in their song of the same name. The chorus also quotes the same.
“And it's blue blue blue
A colour and a surge
Everything that rises must converge
She says one day soon
You and I will merge
Everything that rises must converge.” 2605:8D80:641:646F:1120:3E57:AA0:ED20 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another artist(s) reference to Everything That Rises Must Converge