This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank J. Tipler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Omega Point (Tipler) page were merged into Frank J. Tipler on 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Final anthropic principle page were merged into Frank J. Tipler. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I archived the old discussions, although they're all essentially the same issues that occurred over at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) they're ancient history now and we can start afresh. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
For the sake of any editors not involved, there used to be a separate page Omega Point (Tipler) which needed improvement, was improved and then merged into this article. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 23:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Chapter The Omega Point, second paragraph has an occurrence of complete nonsense: "...whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding a proposed collapse of the universe...". There is no semantic content in this and I am not able to deduct any. Someone with access to the book should remedy this, if need be by direct citation. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 00:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
What a goofball. Nex Carnifex ( talk) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the references to journals that were actually proceedings, symposiums, non-scientific journals etc. I've left the remaining four references as they appear to be to actual scientific journals. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- ( User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 20:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
. It is about a universal turing machine. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- ( User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)A true universal Turing machine can be constructed only if it is possible to actually process and store an infinite number of bits between now and the end of the universe. Conditions on the universe are derived that must hold if such processing and storage is to be possible. In particular, it is shown that it is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its futurec-boundary consists of a single point.
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)
IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard [1] that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally above admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.
But his other deletions of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings is also utterly improper and a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." [2]
Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted the "Cosmological Limits on Computation" paper, which IRWolfie- admits above that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings, which as I said is an utter violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See his post at 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC).-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Look here, Jamiemichelle, in this edit you stated in the summary that IRWolfie-'s edit "violates Administrator N419BH's settlement of this issue." However, the issue is clearly not settled; if even one good faith editor reverts, and it is not clear or obvious profanity which is vandalism, then the issue is far from being resolved by any means. A large part of the problem here is citation overkill; please go back to reading regular professional encyclopedias and you will see that they will not contain peer-reviewed scientific journals as references just for the sake of references. It renders the page completely unreadable. You don't want to read an encyclopedia full of numbers after a single sentence, do you? 1 2 3 4 5 :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Much too much of this article is sourced to Tipler himself. Of particular concern is:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW Shermer and Shermer's book are fine WP:RS for documentation on this pseudoscientific concept. That said, we have ungated sources such as [6] that we could source content to instead and make life easier for us all. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really care if a blog on American Scientist magazine's website criticizes the definition. It has its own policy, WP:PSCI... — Paleo Neonate – 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frank J. Tipler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Omega Point (Tipler) page were merged into Frank J. Tipler on 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Final anthropic principle page were merged into Frank J. Tipler. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
I archived the old discussions, although they're all essentially the same issues that occurred over at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) they're ancient history now and we can start afresh. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
For the sake of any editors not involved, there used to be a separate page Omega Point (Tipler) which needed improvement, was improved and then merged into this article. 58.96.94.12 ( talk) 23:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Chapter The Omega Point, second paragraph has an occurrence of complete nonsense: "...whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding a proposed collapse of the universe...". There is no semantic content in this and I am not able to deduct any. Someone with access to the book should remedy this, if need be by direct citation. -- Tomdo08 ( talk) 00:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
What a goofball. Nex Carnifex ( talk) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the references to journals that were actually proceedings, symposiums, non-scientific journals etc. I've left the remaining four references as they appear to be to actual scientific journals. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- ( User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 20:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
. It is about a universal turing machine. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- ( User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)A true universal Turing machine can be constructed only if it is possible to actually process and store an infinite number of bits between now and the end of the universe. Conditions on the universe are derived that must hold if such processing and storage is to be possible. In particular, it is shown that it is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its futurec-boundary consists of a single point.
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)
IRWolfie- has repeatedly admitted above and on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard [1] that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the Omega Point cosmology. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself if he would not attempt to make edits based upon that complete lack of knowledge, yet he has repeatedly attempted to delete the paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" based upon his ignorance of the subject. He finally above admitted that he was wrong in attempting to delete that article.
But his other deletions of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings is also utterly improper and a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." [2]
Now Tim Shuba (who is part of an antitheist crowd that got involved in articles associated with Prof. Tipler after a news report on Tipler was posted to some antitheist discussion boards) has re-deleted the "Cosmological Limits on Computation" paper, which IRWolfie- admits above that he was wrong to delete. As well, Tim Shuba has also reinstated IRWolfie-'s other deletions of the peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream journals and proceedings, which as I said is an utter violation of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See his post at 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC).-- Jamie Michelle ( talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Look here, Jamiemichelle, in this edit you stated in the summary that IRWolfie-'s edit "violates Administrator N419BH's settlement of this issue." However, the issue is clearly not settled; if even one good faith editor reverts, and it is not clear or obvious profanity which is vandalism, then the issue is far from being resolved by any means. A large part of the problem here is citation overkill; please go back to reading regular professional encyclopedias and you will see that they will not contain peer-reviewed scientific journals as references just for the sake of references. It renders the page completely unreadable. You don't want to read an encyclopedia full of numbers after a single sentence, do you? 1 2 3 4 5 :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Much too much of this article is sourced to Tipler himself. Of particular concern is:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW Shermer and Shermer's book are fine WP:RS for documentation on this pseudoscientific concept. That said, we have ungated sources such as [6] that we could source content to instead and make life easier for us all. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really care if a blog on American Scientist magazine's website criticizes the definition. It has its own policy, WP:PSCI... — Paleo Neonate – 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)