Talk:Omega Point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 (š’³) 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. ā€”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) ā€”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 TeilhardĀ“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"ā€”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 itā€”the part which decided to ā€˜cross the thresholdā€™, 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.

ā€”Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de ā™¦ 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. ā€” 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)
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)

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)

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 am generally not a fan of deletion for any article). But when reading something like this, I'm dissappointed 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)

Barely understandable addition[edit]

"The concept ascends to Isaac Newton, who regarded the continuum's gravitational potential as animus mundi[1][2]ā€”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)

Smk65536, please read this article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal to clear up your confusion
If you chose not to read it, here's a few key sentences from the abstract:
"Teilhard is almost surely the first to discuss the acceleration of technological progress to a Singularity in which human intelligence will become super-intelligence. He discusses the spread of human intelligence into the universe and its amplification into a cosmic intelligence. More recently, his work has been taken up by Barrow and Tipler; Tipler; Moravec; and Kurzweil. Of course, Teilhardā€™s Omega Point Theory is deeply Christian, which may be difficult for secular transhumanists. But transhumanism cannot avoid a fateful engagement with Christianity."
The article goes on to explain the connection between Omega Point and technological singularity in great detail.
As for your concerns about the section being unsourced, I will try to add sources soon when I get some free time. Abierma3 (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the source, I have given it a good read. To address the problem of that section being poorly sourced, I have rewrote parts of it using sourced material from both your source and sources from the technological singularity article. Feel free to improve. However I disagree with you previously using the source to attach Ray Kurzweil to this article. Ray Kurzweil has never talked about this religious belief let alone have this religious belief, and associating him is overreaching. Smk65536 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how the the source could be any more clear:
"More recently, his work has been taken up by Barrow and Tipler; Tipler; Moravec; and Kurzweil."
"Kurzweil also articulates a somewhat weaker OPT."
"My method is to present these ideas in a charitable way using a contemporary conceptual vocabulary, and to show how they have been refined by transhumanists such as Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil."
"Teilhardā€™s writings outline a series of epochs of complexity. These closely resemble the six epochs of complexity described by Kurzweil (2005: 7-33). In order to show how Teilhardā€™s vision is taken up by such transhumanist thinkers as Kurzweil, I'll divide Teilhardā€™s epochs of complexity into the six outlined by Kurzweil (2005: 15)."
Teilhard preceded Kurzweil. Kurzweil developed the idea of Omega Point Theory first articulated by Teilhard. The connection is clear. Keep in mind this is a peer-reviewed academic journal. This is not something that would have been overlooked by those reviewing it. Maybe you are confused on the definition of development? A religious idea can be developed into an advanced concept that does not solely focus on the religious aspect. The weakened focus on religion while focusing more on the technological aspects itself can be considered a development. I do not want to continue an edit war, but it is fairly evident that you are willing to disregard facts in an attempt to wipe Kurzweil from this article. I will be reverting your edit to what is consistent with what the source says.Abierma3 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I am attempting to engage in discussion with you. The connection is not clear at all. Having similarities is not the same as development. There is little evidence in that article that Kurzweil even knows about this religious belief, let alone "develop" it. Have a look at the following paragraph:

Teilhardā€™s OPT was later refined and developed by Barrow and Tipler (1986) and by Tipler alone (1988; 1995). Ideas from the Barrow-Tipler OPT were, in turn, taken up by many transhumanists (see, for example, Moravec (1988; 2000) and Dewdney (1998)). Kurzweil also articulates a somewhat weaker OPT. He says: ā€œevolution moves inexorably toward our conception of God, albeit never reaching this idealā€ (2005: 476; see also 375, 389-390). Many transhumanists work within the conceptual architecture of Teilhardā€™s OPT without being aware of its origins. Indeed, Teilhard is mostly ignored in the histories of transhumanism; e.g., he is mentioned once and only in passing in Bostromā€™s (2005) detailed history of the transhumanist movement.

Not being aware of Teilhard's religious belief cannot be called a development on it at all. It can only be called a concept which bears some similarities, superficially or not. Smk65536 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a close look:
"...his work has been taken up by Barrow and Tipler; Tipler; Moravec; and Kurzweil."
"...they have been refined by transhumanists such as Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil."
These these two sentences explicitly state that Teilhard's OPT was refined by Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil.Abierma3 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
And where does the evidence for that come from? The author clearly states that "Teilhardā€™s OPT was later refined and developed by Barrow and Tipler (1986) and by Tipler alone". It is clear from my quote that Kurzweil's theory merely has similarities with Teilhard's religious belief, and not an explicit development. You are taking the author's words at face value and treating them as facts. If "Omega Point" was actually part or a significant influence of Kurzweil's theory, then where does he mention this in his books? Smk65536 (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WPNOTRS content guideline, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" and "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." As for taking the author's words at face value and treating them as facts, that is exactly what should be done with a reliable source. Wikipedia has peer-reviewed journals on their list of the most reliable sources, and the Journal of Evolution and Technology fits all the criteria for being a reliable source. Abierma3 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" Exactly. This is why so far I have not questioned the accuracy of the article. What I question is your interpretation of the author's words, and treating the author's words at face value instead of understanding that "taken up" here means both similarities and developments, not developments alone. Otherwise why would the author say "Teilhardā€™s OPT was later refined and developed by Barrow and Tipler (1986) and by Tipler alone" while saying after "Many transhumanists work within the conceptual architecture of Teilhardā€™s OPT without being aware of its origins.", and in the article "seems to correspond closely"? This is not a development at all, only a similarity at best. Other academic papers I have seen from the first page of a google scholar search also do not call this a development, only a similarity. Smk65536 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The definition of refine is "to remove the unwanted substances in (something)" or "to improve (something) by making small changes." Precision and clarity of words is key in articles of philosophy, this wording would have been carefully scrutinizes in the academic review process. The author states, "Many transhumanists work within the conceptual architecture of Teilhardā€™s OPT without being aware of its origins," because this is absolutely true. There is no doubt that the large majority of transhumanists ignore Teilhard, but the author specifically states that Tipler, Moravec, and Kurzweil refined Teilhard's belief. You are accusing me of taking the author's words at face value when this is exactly what Wikipedia policy calls for. What Wikipedia policy prohibits is forming your own analysis and interpretation of a source, which is exactly what you are doing. Abierma3 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
You might have missed this wikipedia policy WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." Words such as "refine" (in the case of "to improve (something) by making small changes.") and "develop" require explicit evidence, which needs to include at the minimum evidence of Kurzweil acknowledging Teilhard's belief as having influenced his thoughts. Otherwise we can only state it as an opinion of the author. Smk65536 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to your question on the exact quotations which mention the similarities, the sources you have removed include the following:

Teilhardā€™s vision of a technologically assisted human evolution toward imperishable bodies and a unification of individual human minds into a global consciousness or ā€œNoosphereā€ shares features with Kurzweilā€™s idea of an impending ā€œSingularityā€ in which the Internet and other computer-based forms of communication and intelligence foster the emergence of a global ā€œcybermind.ā€

There are significant similarities between Kurzweilā€™s vision of the future and Teilhardā€™s eschatology including an emphasis on consciousness, an evolutionary theory that provides for superorganisms (emergence of complexity from more basic forms), an exceptional role for humanity but also its superannuation, and the culmination in universe consciousness. The differences, however, should also be noted. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes consciousness in terms of spirit whereas Ray Kurzweil emphasizes information, computation, and intelligence. He and other transhumanists describe the evolutionary process in secular terms, for example, natural selection, Mooreā€™s Law of exponential increases in processing power, and technological innovation, so that there is no need to introduce divine agency.

Niether articles mention "development", only "similarities". According to wikipedia's policy we should give due weight to all opinions. Smk65536 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these articles state that Kurzweil did not develop Teilhard's OPT. Both articles affirm their similarities. It would be expected that a refinement of an idea would share similarities to the original idea. We also have a reliable source that explicitly states that Kurzweil did refine Teilhard's OPT. You are creating a contradiction where there is none due to your own bias against Kurzweil. As for your explanation of Wikipedia policy about opinions, it is not an opinion if a person says that Kurzweil refined Teilhard's OPT. This is factual information that would have been researched and verified in the peer review process. It would be an opinion and NPOV concern if a person says that Kurzweil's development is superior to Teilhard's OPT, but this is not what anyone is asserting. Abierma3 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Basing my claims on evidence is hardly a bias. Clearly, this "refinement" theory would be more notable and referred in other papers if it were not a fringe theory. Fringe theories are not going to be referenced in most articles. Taking an example, how many biology papers on evolution would talk about then reject creationism? Since more papers than not have only pointed out similarities, the article should state it as such according to wikipedia policy, and balance all viewpoints. "It would be expected that a refinement of an idea would share similarities to the original idea." but the converse is not true is it? Smk65536 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense. My source (highly reliable peer-reviewed academic journal) explicitly states that Kurzweil refined Teilhard's OPT. Your two sources point out the similarities between Kurzweil's Singularity and Teilhard's OPT. Do you not realize that this is overwhelming evidence that Kurzweil developed Teilhard's OPT? Your two sources support my argument; not only do we have a reliable source directly stating what I have been asserting, but we have two more sources that back up what I am asserting because it makes sense that a refined idea would have similarities to the original idea. You have provided no evidence that logically supports your belief that Kurzweil did not refine Teilhard's OPT. Also, your "example" is completely irrelevant, evolution and creationism are completely opposite, while you yourself keep pointing out the similarities between Kurzweil's Singularity and Teilhard's OPT. That makes it an apples to oranges comparison, and no one claims evolution is a development of creationism in the first place. Your last sentence doesn't make sense either, if a refined idea shares similarities to the original idea, doesn't that necessarily imply that the original idea shares similarities to the refined idea? What "converse" are you talking about? Abierma3 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a single academic article that hypothesizes a new theory really counts as "overwhelming evidence". So why not write down what each paper has said? This is what I attempted to do before and what wikipedia policy requires, to give balance to all viewpoints. My example is very relevant to support the fact that fringe theories are not going to be referenced in most academic papers. The converse to your statement is that "similarities to the original idea is a refinement of an idea", which is false. Smk65536 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
How is this a fringe theory? It's not even an idea, it is a historical fact that could easily be verified by researchers and the peer-edit review team (and if it's as controversial as you say, it would have been verified). We aren't trying to prove the unprovable here. It is overwhelming evidence because we have a reliable academic journal that explicitly states it and your two sources that point out similarities between the two. Similarities to the original could be evidence that it is a refinement of an idea, so the statement is not always false all the time. This is why your "evidence" is insufficient, you need to provide a source that says Kurzweil did not refine it. Yes, Wikipedia policy calls for balance to all viewpoints, but as of right now, you have provided no source supporting your viewpoint that Kurzweil did not refine Teilhard's OPT. Like I have said, you are creating a contradiction where there is none to push your own viewpoint. Abierma3 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a fringe theory, otherwise as I have pointed out, other authors would refer to this, and if it were a "historical fact", most if not all would point it out, and there would be quite a few papers on this subject supporting this view directly. "you have provided no source supporting your viewpoint that Kurzweil did not refine Teilhard's OPT" But why would the majority not pick it up if it were not a fringe theory? So far the other 2 papers have only highlighted similarities. And this should be pointed out in the article. "and if it's as controversial as you say, it would have been verified" I have never said it was controversial, it is just the author's fringe view. Plenty of journal articles in science are not verified. My viewpoint is exactly what wikipedia policy dictates, and you are pushing for the removal of the academic papers of others, which have only pointed to similarities. Smk65536 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I find it ridiculous that you think Ray Kurzweil has developed this theory when he hasn't even written it down (or even mentioned I think) in his books. Smk65536 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Time Cube[edit]

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 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)

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. ā€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Abierma3 (talk ā€¢ contribs) 02:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
TC is clearly irrelevant and should be removed, as it has been William M. Connolley (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Quote[edit]

There is evidence of violation of the WP:3RR rule here. Whilst the quote might be right, there is no substantiate statement regarding why it has been added not to its relevance to the article. A substantiate statement needs to be made then referenced, not just quote a reference. (Else, we would be just adding quote statements without reason.) Quotes are fine, but they need to be properly asserted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In further investigation, I note here there are no quotation marks, and absolutely nothing that states it is relevant to the article's title. Worse, the linked article on John G. Bennett mentions nothing about the Omega point at all. Even the link; Bennett, John G. The Dramatic Universe, Vol. 4, pp.130-131 is not even properly sourced. I.e. It was written in 1966, without Publisher or ISBN. The quote is also needlessly esoteric and isn't really relevant or related to the article. Abierma3 please elaborate how this statement is relevant, because its addition looks like personal theory to me. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh., and one other point. The Omega point article mentions Bennett's article "1965. Long Pilgrimage (2e ed. 1983) (The life and teaching of the Shivapuri Baba)", but the extracted quote is quote unrelated to the 1966 quoted reference. (I check this a third time, and it is still not relevant. Why is that? I do assume WP:GF, but it look possibly agenda drive here?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Bennett is asserting a critical view of the Omega Point in this quotation. The quote says, "The second alternative is preferred by Christian theologians such as de Chardin who seek to reconcile Christian faith with belief in mechanistic evolution." To not include Bennett in the article would be NPOV. It is a primary source, so including the entire direct quotation makes sense. If you're not satisfied with the citation, use the {{Full citation needed}} inline template instead of blanking the entire section. Abierma3 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Bennett is asserting a critical view of the Omega Point in this quotation - so you say. Actually, there is nothing to explicitly tie the quote to OP at all. Plus, why add *that* particular piece of crit? The real answer is that the OP is total bollox; adding just one piece of periphal crit implies we're taking it seriously, which is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The quote starts off by saying, "There is something suspicious in any view of history that makes one moment the culmination of the evolutionary process." Bennett doesn't use the term "Omega Point" directly, but he is clearly referring to similar concepts when he says "one moment the culmination of the evolutionary process." He mentions Teilhard by name in the same paragraph, making it certain that his criticisms are applicable to the Omega Point. "Total bollox" is your opinion. If you know of any other criticisms of Omega Point, please let us know so we can give proper weight to all viewpoints. Abierma3 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Its you saying "clearly referring to"; not the text. He does mention de Chardin (after an ellipsis; I don't know how much text has been removed there) but says:
The commonly held view is that Creation means one of two things: [A] either complete or detailed fashioning by the Creator of the entire universe and every part of it; or else, [B] the launching of a process that, after its inception, is governed by laws without renewed Intervention, or at most Intervention of the very special kind in the Incarnation of God as Man. The second alternative is preferred by Christian theologians such as de Chardin
That bit is contrasting strong creationism with initial-creationism-then-evolution. That has nothing obvious to do with OP, and why he'd mention de C as an advocate of the latter rather than, say, the Pope I don't know. "Total bollox" is indeed my opinion; as usual, for drivel like this there isn't much mainstream crit, because who would bother? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you denying that Omega Point theory "makes one moment the culmination of the evolutionary process?" Also, Bennett says, "Christian theologians such as de Chardin who seek to reconcile Christian faith with belief in mechanistic evolution." He then says, "According to our view, neither of those is adequate." Are you denying that Omega Point theroy seeks "to reconcile Christian faith with belief in mechanistic evolution?" Abierma3 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Again. That isn't even relevant to the issue here, and it seems all your playing is just making obfuscation. Just pretending something says something when it doesn't even come close to validate the assertion is silly. Stop pushing the barrow please.Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. That's your answer of justification Abierma3! Bennett's quote is just UNRELATED to the article, and it is not been explained. (The additional lack of an even incorrect / wrong citation is evidence enough.) Also if it is so critical, as you say, why doesn't Bennett's words directly refer to the "Omega point" then? The quote is airy fairy, which has been manipulated to suit an argument not a useful statement of fact. Sorry, your placing you own point of view (as personal research) before justifying the quote's actual relevance. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
This is thoroughly discussed in The Phenomenon of Man Book Two: Life, please read.Abierma3 (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

The universe as a whole is evolving towards a state of maximizing its entropy. At the same I've heard organisms described as "entropy pumps". Under this, my understanding is that evolution, which describes a localized population of organism taking energy in from the outside, amounts to an organization of sorts, and, thus, a reduction in entropy or, at least, a resistance to its increase. These two notions (for the universe and evolution) don't seem to me to fit with Omega Point theory. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Please find below quotes from The Phenomenon of Man's introduction by Sir Julian Huxley, "one of the twentieth century's leading evolutionary biologists." This should leave no doubt that biological evolution is relevant to Omega Point theory:

  • "He has effected a threefold synthesisā€”of the material and physical world with the world of mind and spirit; of the past with the future; and of variety with unity, the many with the one. He achieves this by examining every fact and every subject of his investigation sub specie evolutionis, with reference to its development in time and to its evolutionary position."
  • "His second and perhaps most fundamental point is the absolute necessity of adopting an evolutionary point of view."
  • "With this approach he is rightly and indeed inevitably driven to the conclusion that, since evolutionary phenomena (of course including the phenomenon known as man) are processes, they can never be evaluated or even adequately described solely or mainly in terms of their origins: they must be defined by their direction, their inherent possibilities (including of course also their limitations), and their deducible future trends."
  • "He usually uses convergence to denote the tendency of mankind, during its evolution, to superpose centripetal on centrifugal trends, so as to prevent centrifugal differentiation from leading to fragmentation, and eventually to incorporate the results of differentiation in an organised and unified pattern. Human convergence was first manifested on the genetic or biological level: after Homo sapiens began to differentiate into distinct races (or subspecies, in more scientific terminology) migration and inter-marriage prevented, the pioneers from going further, and led to increasing interbreeding between all human variants. As a result, man is the only successful type which has remained as a single interbreeding group or species, and has not radiated out into a number of biologically separated assemblages"
  • "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 in no way detracts from the positive value of his naturalistic general approach. "

I think the bolded part of the last quote speaks for itself and should leave no doubt on the matter, especially coming from a leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th century. Abierma3 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
"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)
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)
On that one point I agree with you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)

Please keep discussion focussed on this particular article on the Omega Point. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ā€“ where in reality, nothing exists. This page IMO should be headed towards rapid deletion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)