Talk:Frank J. Tipler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived talk[edit]

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)

Wait, so the ones over at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) are archived? Or about to be? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No no, just the old ones from here. You could add Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) into an archive here if you felt it worthwhile, I was just going to leave them where they are, since they're not about to get in the way of any future discussion. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's all marvelously ambiguous; what, when, where even if.... so I'll just copy what's left on Talk:Omega point below, along with my post in case McKenna's comments get resurrected. (I haven't looked at Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) or elsewhere).
Keeping the redirectIf something merges, talk needs to be archived and taken along for the ride to insure proper licensing.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
lol, I hadn't noticed the redirects. That sorts it out enough for me with the vanilla OT being a redirect. I should have said it's only when the old page is getting deleted that history has to merge too... wikifun—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha, oh man this is getting confusing. The talk page that we're talking about is from the Omega Point (Tipler) page that doesn't exist any more, it's not got much to do with Omega Point (non-Tipler). I'll move the archives from OPT to here and not touch OP at all. I removed your c&p because it was just confusing and not that relevant to here. The talk at OP (non-Tipler) is archived there so it's not lost either. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's done but it occurs to me that moving the talk pages would have been better than a c&p. If someone who can move pages directly wants to do that then feel free, I should probably have asked someone to do that instead but it's done now. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so lets let Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) be, as an archive of past discussions and preservation of article history. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I put the merge template at the top according to Help:Merging. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Omega Point (redux)[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

Wait, so turning an article into a redirect is an improvement? There's less content. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)

Tipler's paper found in list[edit]

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)

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)

Slightly random[edit]

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 TimeWave Zero:
...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 TimeWave 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 TimeWave calculation forward results in a zero 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 "Apocalyptic". 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)

Secondary sources per WP:PSTS needed for claims in article[edit]

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)

Nonsense in chapter The Omega Point[edit]

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)

One ought to avoid confusing one's own lack of knowledge on a subject with there being no meaning to the subject. What the passage you quote means is that as the universe collapses into the Omega Point final singularity, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its memory space and processor speed) increases with a hyperbolic growth rate, thereby allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime (i.e., a supertask of computation, along the lines of ). The passage you quote is itself pretty self-explanitory, so I don't know what you found confusing about it.
One needn't merely check in Prof. Frank J. Tipler's three books on this subject, as his Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in many prestigious physics journals, including in a number of the world's leading physics journals. The first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics in 1986 (a journal Richard Feynman also chose to publish in during the 1980s).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

section from Heaven article brought back here[edit]

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)

This is so false[edit]

What a goofball. Nex Carnifex (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nex Carnifex. Are you referring to the Omega Point cosmology? If so, then as far as anyone knows, it is correct. The only way it could be incorrect is if one or more of either the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics are wrong, since the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per those aforesaid known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.
Furthermore, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology, and of which is itself also required by the known laws of physics. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as fringe believers go, it may be accepted, but it is absolutely not accepted in mainstream physics. It is not a mathematical theorem. You will likely have difficulty understanding the requirements for mathematical proof given that you automatically accept as fact the theories of a man who publishes speculation regarding the decomposition of Jesus's body into neutrinos. Peripheral to this crackpottery is his status as a climate change denialist. This is regarded as crank science, and no amount of trolling will change that fact.76.110.113.10 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Relativity and quantum mechanics are intrinsically incompatible, so at least one of them must be wrong, disproving Jamie Michelle's first argument. (Agreement with experiment to finite precision is evidence, not proof.) A verified TOE would have caused worldwide jubilation and won Nobel prizes, but these effects are not observed, undermining JM's second argument. (The Higgs particle furore would be minor by comparison.) Charging that Tipler has elsewhere committed crank science is an ad hominem attack, discrediting 76.110.113.10's rejoinder. (Much of Newton's work was equally worthless, but the truth of his correct conclusions is unaffected.) Ornithikos (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Journals[edit]

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)

Except for the correspondence, the papers you deleted are all peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings. I'll add them back while noting "and proceedings".--Jamie Michelle (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No they are -not- all peer reviewed. Nature explicitly says correspondence is not peer reviewed. and two others aren't even from scientific journals at all. Not all proceedings are peer reviewed. I would also suggest you look at each ref carefully as I have done and not just a blanket revert. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't add the correspondence back. The proceedings are all peer-reviewed, as peer-review is a standard process in proceedings papers. And as I said, except for the correspondence, the papers you deleted are all peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings. This time around you also deleted "Cosmological Limits on Computation", which was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics.
Based upon your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, it appears that you are simply attempting to disrupt this article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted no peer reviewed scientific journals, and no proceedings which can be identified as peer reviewed. If you look at the article instead of accusing me of disruption you will see that I have worked to improve it and as a result of this highlight that Tipler has what may be a legitimate hypothesis. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This time around you also deleted "Cosmological Limits on Computation", which was published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (published by Springer). You also deleted numerous other mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journal papers, such as from the International Journal of Astrobiology (published by Cambridge University Press) and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science (published by Wiley-Blackwell). You also delted the peer-reviewed proceedings papers (peer-review is a standard process in proceedings papers).
Based upon your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, it appears that you are simply attempting to disrupt this article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If you actually looked at my edits you would see that I removed "Cosmological Limits on Computation" because it is about turing machines. The "International Journal of Astrobiology" (a non-physics and non-mathematical) paper is not suitable. Nor is the Journal of Religion and Science since it it is not a scientific journal. Please do not accuse me of disrupting when there are no grounds. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.
So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.
The International Journal of Astrobiology is published by Cambridge University Press.
Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading academic journal on science and religion.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Zygon is not a scientific journal as even it's website shows. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The International Journal of Astrobiology is not suitable as is demonstrated by the Wikipedia page on it due to controversy and it's lack of specialization in the subject. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The "controversy" mentioned in that Wikipedia article for the International Journal of Astrobiology is sourced by a blog post. So based upon your criteria, this "controversy" has no place on Wikipedia and that section should be deleted from the article.
At any rate, that is irrelevant even if perfectly accurate, because even some of the leading science journals have made mistakes. If that were a legitimate criteria for determining a mainstream scientific journal, then there are a number of leading science journals that Wikipedia would not be allowed to source.
Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science is published by Wiley-Blackwell and is the world's leading academic journal on science and religion. Here is Wiley-Blackwell's Zygon homepage: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744 .--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The abstract of "cosmological limits on computation" is :

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.

. It is about a universal turing machine. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The paper "Cosmological Limits on Computation" is the first paper published on the Omega Point cosmology (Tipler even explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper). The Omega Point cosmology *concerns* how a universal Turing machine is physically possible.
When Prof. Tipler states in that abstract "In particular, it is shown that it [i.e., a physical universal Turing machine] is possible only if the universe is closed and only if its future c-boundary consists of a single point", that is the Omega Point cosmology that he is speaking about. And again, Tipler explicitly names the Omega Point in this paper. The Omega Point is the is name that Tipler gives in this paper for this future single-point c-boundary: hence the name "Omega Point", meaning end-point at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.
So you have not the slightest clue in the world as to what you are talking about on this subject. It is therefore logically impossible that you could improve the article except for edits involving grammar and typos, and the like.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If your only issue is with this paper, why revert edits I made to the rest of the article which are not connected? User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk)
As you ought to be able to see from my posts above, this paper is not my only issue with your edits. The only valid edit that you had was removing the correspondence, of which edit I kept. All your other edits are extremely disruptive, as they delete peer-reviewed papers in mainstream science journals and proceedings.
Unless you're editing something that requires absolutely no knowledge about the Omega Point cosmology, such as edits involving formatting, grammar, typos and the like (such as knowing what a correspondence is), then it's not logically possible for you to make improvements to the article, because you know nothing about its subject.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Division[edit]

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)

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)

Disruption of article, improper deletion of peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals and proceedings[edit]

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)

Okay, I pose the following question: What important information is critically absent from the present article? N419BH 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
When it is said that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed in many scientific journals and proceeding, simply cite them, so that people can see for themselves and also get an accurate idea that this is in fact a mainstream scientific theory (e.g., it only uses known laws of physics), despite accusations to the contrary. As well, so that way people can read the papers if they want more information on the Omega Point cosmology.
By not citing these papers, it gives the false impression that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology isn't as widely peer-reviewed in the mainstream scientific literature as it in fact is.
Out of ten of Prof. Tipler's papers that are published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings, all of them except for three papers have been deleted from the article. It blatanty appears that IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba's intentions here are to make it appear as if Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology hasn't been as widely published in the mainstream scientific literature as it in fact has been. At any rate, this is an utter 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."[3]
The following are the seven (out of ten) of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings which have been deleted by IRWolfie- and Tim Shuba:
Again, all of the above deleted papers are peer-reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings, and thus deleting them is a complete violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: [4].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I gave an edit summary for every removal, please look at them. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at them. Your deletions of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals or proceedings is a complete violation of Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources: [5].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that it is not a mainstream theory. When someone from Nature labels something as pseudoscience it is generally not a good sign. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The Omega Point cosmology is as mainstream as it gets. One has to violate the known laws of physics in order to avoid it, as it is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.
That book review in Nature by George Ellis in not peer-reviewed, and so based upon your repeatedly stated criteria, must be deleted from the article. In the only peer-reviewed scientific paper to criticize Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, Ellis gave an argument that the laws of physics are violated if event horizons are not eliminated, thereby unwittingly greatly strengthening the Omega Point cosmology, as it requires event horizons to be eliminated.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Using ten citations for one sentence is a bit obnoxious. Perhaps use each one to cite a different relevant sentence in the article? There are all sorts of [citation needed] tags at present. And if you want to claim that this is "mainstream scientific theory" you will need a reliable source for that. Citing ten peer-reviewed journals and calling that evidence of the theory itself being "mainstream" is what we call original research here at Wikipedia. Original Research is not allowed in articles. N419BH 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as they are used to add claims that Frank Tipler makes (and worded as such) then I would have no issue with them being used. Edit: I should clarify that as long as they are not claimed to be scientific journals then they can be used to represent the views of Frank Tipler. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I state that it is a mainstream scientific theory on this page in discussion with others who made the opposite claim on this page, not in the article. The fact that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the mainstream scientific literature speaks for itself, particularly since the only peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal that has criticized the Omega Point cosmology unwittingly ended up greatly strengthening it.
I'll add back the deleted papers in the appropriate sentences which they respectively address. But citing them all for one sentence is also appropriate if there are any citations in the article which make the claim that the Omega Point cosmology is "pseudoscience" (or some similar claim), since the fact that the Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature serves to put such claims in their proper perspective.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Widely published theories would have many thousands of related papers. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 00:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There are. Any paper confirming the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics (which have all been confirmed by every experiment to date) adds strength and weight to the Omega Point cosmology, since it is now a mathematical theorem per those known laws of physics.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It is original research to suggest that these strengthen his idea or even that his ideas are a direct result of the laws of physics. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 00:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to your comments on this Talk page. Of which, your comments also don't follow the rules that are required for an article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The citations added were all dated before 1994, a reliable source must discuss the new approach also to show there was this change of focus. Please don't add the references for the sake of it, relevant papers are included at the bottom already. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. You're making up your own criteria, which is not found in Wikipedia policy. Because your deletions of these papers which were published in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals and proceedings violate Administrator N419BH's settlement of this issue, and because said deletions also violate Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, I will add them back to the article.
Not that it's relevant to policy vis-à-vis the article, but just to address your made-up criteria, the physics used in those older papers (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) still apply. So even though your made-up criteria is irrelevant to this issue, even on it's own terms it is false.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't "making up" policy Jamiemichelle, you can't have citations from before an event happened about that event. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What event happened before what event? What are you talking about?
At any rate, it's irrelevant. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. You're making up your own criteria, which is not found in Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
References dated before 1994 can't be used to say what occurred in 1994. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also there is no sense in using more references than required for something non-contentious. see here Wikipedia:Citation_overkill User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
And no references are used to state what occured in 1994 that were published before that year. Perhaps you're thinking of the way the references were used given the phraseology of the sentence they were attatched to. If so, that will be rectified while still including said references.
Regarding your claim of "no sense", Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. You're making up your own criteria, which is not found in Wikipedia policy. The references will be added back which makes them relevant to the setence which they address, and hence they cannot then be overkill. Besides, as I alreadly said, Administrator N419BH already settled this issue.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a clear case of Citation overkill. there is no need for these multiple citations. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. His requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all you can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. You cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Show a diff where that that has been said? User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 20:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See his post at 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This quote: "Perhaps use each one to cite a different relevant sentence in the article?" ? It specifically says not to use them like you have. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 20:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
But that would only justify you in rearranging the citations. That would not justify you in *deleting* citations. N419BH already said that all the citations can remain. And they all must remain per Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As others have stated on the administrators noticeboard this is not the case. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree, that is completely incorrect. One editor's opinion does not dictate policy, and certainly not when there is an ongoing discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 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?12345 :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would encourage reading of the relevant policy pages, such as WP:CITEBUNDLE, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_and_why_to_cite_sources, WP:BOMBARD, and WP:CITEKILL. We also have Template:Too many references for a reason. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate change denialism[edit]

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)

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)
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)

To the antitheists[edit]

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)

Related Articles[edit]

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)

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)
I've listed them on FTN. User:IRWolfie-IRWolfie- (User talk:IRWolfie-talk) 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspected Sockpuppet[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Anthropic principle[edit]

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)

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)

Primary sources[edit]

Much too much of this article is sourced to Tipler himself. Of particular concern is:

  1. The fact that most of the biographical information is cited to him and his website
  2. 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)

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)
Done. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)