Talk:Omega Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merging Omega Point (Tipler) (redux)[edit]

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. (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be better integrated into Teilhard's article, perhaps even merged there, or into an article on the 1950 book. Tipler's stuff can be merged into Tipler's bio article, there is nothing to be gained from conflating Tipler's ideas with Teilhard's. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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. (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
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.-- (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Original research, crystal ball?[edit]

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)

Reguarding "Technological singularity as a rival concept": More original research...[edit]

All this speaking of "Some transhumanist writings refer to this moment as the Omega Point, paying homage to Teilhard's prior use of the term, though Teilhard himself denounces the belief in a collective technological singularity as a form of cowardice." ... -- is just so much "original research."

If someone could point to "Teilhard himself denounces the belief in a collective technological singularity as a form of cowardice," I'd love to see it -- I've read The Future of Man, and several detailed biographies of the man and glossaries of his thought, -- and nothing I have seen in the Wikipedia text I'm criticizing here makes any sense to me.

I read both the quoted text here, and the quoted text in the original document, and I'm just not seeing it. Was it the use of the word "mechanism" here? Does the author understand that Teilhard is not referring to gears and wires here?

I would guess that someone who identifies themself as a singularitarian has taken it upon themselves to distance their movement from Teilhard, and is positing original research as if it were established fact.

LionKimbro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

The author of the article claims that in the Omega Point there will be only one person, but that is refuted by the section "Characteristics of the Omega Point"... and by "The Fenomenon of Man", and many other works by Teilhard, where he makes claims like this: "Union diferentiates" (this is precisely in "The Fenomenon of Man"), trying to state that, the more united the participants in a union, the more different from each other they become. So, I consider those claims about a single person in the final stage should be corrected, in order to reflect accuratelly Teilhard´s thought. Miguel (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Teilhard was explicitly against the concept of a collective singularity. According to him, mankind's convergence (globalization) is merely a preparation for "crossing the threshold" via a "point of dissociation"—death:

Are we to foresee man seeking to fulfil himself collectively upon himself, or personally on a greater than himself? Refusal or acceptance of Omega? A conflict may supervene. In that case the noosphere, in the course of and by virtue of the process which draws it together, will, when it has reached its point of unification, split into two zones each attracted to an opposite pole of adoration. Thought has never completely united upon itself here below. Universal love would only vivify and detach finally a fraction of the noosphere so as to consummate it—the part which decided to ‘cross the threshold’, to get outside itself into the other. Ramification once again, for the last time. <...>
The death of the materially exhausted planet; the split of the noosphere, divided on the form to be given to its unity; and simultaneously (endowing the event with all its significance and with all its value) the liberation of that percentage of the universe which, across time, space and evil, will have succeeded in laboriously synthesising itself to the very end. Not an indefinite progress, which is an hypothesis contradicted by the convergent nature of noogenesis, but an ecstasy transcending the dimensions and the framework of the visible universe. <...>
The idea is that of noogenesis ascending irreversibly towards Omega through the strictly limited cycle of a geogenesis. At a given moment in the future, under some influence exerted by one or the other of these curves or of both together, it is inevitable that the two branches should separate. However convergent it be, evolution cannot attain to fulfilment on earth except through a point of dissociation. With this we are introduced to a fantastic and inevitable event which now begins to take shape in our perspective, the event which comes nearer with every day that passes: the end of all life on our globe, the death of the planet, the ultimate phase of the phenomenon of man.

—Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de ♦ The Phenomenon of Man (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


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 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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.-- (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
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)

NPOV and Original Research problems[edit]

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)

Significant Omission: Discussion of Time Cube[edit]

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)

You're being sarcastic, right? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All of these "theories" make about as much sense as the Time Cube and are treated accordingly by the scientific community. I think that's what StrangeAttractor was alluding to. Dimhue (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Barely understandable addition[edit]

"The concept ascends to Isaac Newton, who regarded the continuum's gravitational potential as animus mundi[1][2]—a radial gradient of animateness. Being the continuum's most animate object, the most complexely organized human is the attractor of the continuum's gravitational involution (see Fine-tuned Universe). In this schema, animus mundi (God) liberates the universe's matter from the sin of inanimateness by incarnating into the most complexely organized human, psychokinetically controlling the universe like his own body:" - What does this even mean? --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, @John, @Dragons flight, It appears that the same editor has been making almost identical contributions to Zero-energy universe and Accelerating universe and possibly to other cosmological pages as well.

Technological singularity irrelevant to this article[edit]

I'm not certain as to what "Technological singularity" has to do with this article, but since Abierma3 has a different view I would like to discuss it here. This article is a religious belief, which is made clear in the introduction of this article. Teilhard says that "[the] universe is constantly evolving towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness", aka the universe is "concious" in a way. Technological singularity is something concrete, in simple terms the development of AI would surpass human intelligence. What do any of these two have to do with each other? The word "conciousness" does not appear in the latter article as far as I can see.

Furthermore, the section is unsourced, with the only source in the section I can see being which appears to be a site promoting this religious belief. I have added the unsourced tag. Smk65536 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)