Talk:Omega Point (Tipler)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Pseudophysics?

Does Tiplers Omega point theory really deserve the categorisation of "pseudophysics"? --Gustafullman 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Uhhh, yes

Either that or it's a dis-service to the term "pseudophysics" which may have been the point of the original question.

[edit] The Last Question

Should some mention be made on this page of Asimov's short story The Last Question?

Hmmm. Similar enough I guess, but certainly not directly related. I'd have to say no, IMHO. Maury 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CorenSearchBot

"The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to be a substantial copy of the Wikipedia page Omega point (Tipler). If the CorenSearchBot is in error: Simply note so on the this article's discussion page and remove the tag."

Yes, it's in error. I moved the article over to "Omega Point (Tipler)", since Prof. Tipler capitalizes the term. Hence, per the above directions, I'm going to remove the tag.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was cut-and-pates moved. In the future, please use the move feature. It that's impossible, you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anyhow, the page histories have now been merged. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Keraunos

Hi, Keraunos. I see you added to, and rearranged, some of this article. I ameliorated some of your additions for accuracy. Below are listed my ameliorations of your edits and my reasons for them:

  • You added the edit "because the temperature of the cosmos rising toward infinity as the final singularity of the big crunch is approached will provide a potentially infinite amount of energy to power the cosmic supercomputer."

I take it that what you tried to explain here is the energy resource. But actually, that isn't physically accurate. The universal heat diverging to infinity doesn't provide usable energy. Where the usable energy comes from is the gravitational shear (i.e., the universe's Taublike collapses along different axes with each cycle, called Mixmaster oscillations), which provides a temperature differential across the universe whereby usable energy can be obtained. Hence, I went ahead and cut this edit of yours.

If people read further into the body of the article, under the section "Outline of the physics of the Omega Point Theory," some of this is already explained, with references provided for further research (with a number of the references available online for free).

I kept the resurrection link. I understand from reading your user page that you're into science fiction and transhumanism, but one should avoid loading up this article with needless science fiction terminology and transhumanist terminology, as well as computer terminology which isn't that accurate (such as "avatar"). The term preceding your edits, "simulated reality," already expresses the ideas you're getting at, and people can follow that hyperlinked text if they're not sure what that means.

  • You added most of this: "engulfed by artificially intelligent life as it approaches the point of maximum expansion, which, according to Tipler, will occur 'between 5 X 10^16 and 5 X 10^18 years from now (in proper time)'."

One should be more accurate in their terminology, as most people think of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as meaning intelligence via artifically created programs. Yet if uploaded human consciousnesses become a reality, then the programs of their minds would be natural, but on an artificial substrate. Hence, I'm changing this to "From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these 'mind children' as it approaches the point of maximum expansion," with "mind children" referring to the previously defined mention of the term.

I also removed your quote of Tipler's estimation as to when the universe will be engulfed, as that is from his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, yet later cosmological observations have been able to define the Hubble shift more accurately, which is what that estimation is based on. So Tipler's current estimation is different now. For more on that, see:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. See also here. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

  • You added the section "Criticism from string theory."

I kept pretty much all of this, while editing it slightly to improve the style and formatting. I changed the section title to "Implications from string theory," since Brian Greene doesn't actually offer any criticism of, or even refer to, Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Greene's book that you referenced.

This section, as it stands now, might have to go entirely, as it appears to fall under Wikipedia's rule concerning original research. As it's written, it's a valid deduction that the Omega Point singularity would be obviated if string theory disallows singularities and if string theory is true, but it's an original deduction.

  • You moved the "See also" section to underneath the references. You also added a number of links therein.

Based upon Wikipedia's "Featured articles," it appears that the preferred location of the "See also" section is where it was previously, before the references. Hence, I moved it back. I removed the link "metaverse," because it's a science fiction term that's perfectly explainable with more accepted terms such as simulated reality. I removed the links "general relativity" and "singularity (gravitational)" because these are already linked in the body of the text, and because they're concepts that are so general that I don't think someone following them from the "See also" section would come to understand the Omega Point Theory itself any better (since, again, said links are so general and basic in their scope). Being linked to in the body of the article is appropriate, because if someone doesn't know what the terms refer to then they can click on them as they come across them.

I removed the link "singularity (technological)" as it doesn't actually apply to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, because the "technological singularity" refers to an explosive growth of technology whereby we cannot predict what comes after (in analogy with the laws of physics having no meaning at a cosmological singularity). Whereas Tipler's Omega Point Theory maintains that the known laws of physics constrain what the future will bring, and hence what the future state will be and how it will come to be.--209.208.77.109 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keraunos' reply

With regard to the string theory criticism, it is interesting that I e-mailed Dr. Tipler about that very problem in May 2006, and he replied that he doesn't believe in string theory, explained why in terms of the physics of Richard Feynman and attached that same paper you cite and provide a link to above---"The structure of the world from pure numbers"---as part of his reply. So I attached that paper to the end of the paragraph about implications from string theory. Keraunos (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly seem knowledgeable about physics. I would suggest that you establish a user name for Wikipedia and then you can establish a user page and a personal talk page to make it easier for you to communicate with other people on Wikipedia. Are you a student of physics or are you a practicing physicist? Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quantum Archeology

The AFD for Quantum Archeology has seen a suggestion that the article be merged, possibly to Omega Point (Tipler). The discussion might therefore benefit from commentary from editors familiar with this area. --Sturm 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The article is conspicuously missing discussion of criticism of the theory, so I have tagged it NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if criticism exists, notice there are only a few (I counted 3) references from this decade by people other than Tipler himself, and of those I know two of them are only to validate the Standard Model (Wilczek's and Quinn's refs). It's doubtful any meaningful research is being done on this subject, other than by Tipler of course. 24.255.9.173 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section mentioning that string theory may contradict Tiplers' theory. That's enough for me as I can't find any direct criticism of the theory from reliable sources. I cannot personally see any WP:NPOV issue. Hence, tag removed. If you disagree go ahead and post it at WP:POVN. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't remove the tag until Superm401 has replied. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by 56.0.143.25

Hi, 56.0.143.25. Please refrain from removing the paragraphical blockquote formatting of the last blockquote, as the formatting of said displayed quotation comes out wrong without the HTML paragraph tags. Without the aforesaid tags, the parenthetical number "(3)" for the numbered equation is rendered as part of, and at the beginning of, the paragraph starting with "This is the qualitatively unique ...," which is incorrect.--67.232.59.169 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53

The user Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 on 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC) wrote:

"The so-called "appeal to authority" information on Deutsch quickly details who he is and his major claim to fame, hence why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. Therefore, deletion reverted."

He has an article about him on Wikipedia listing his work and publications, I've transferred the information about him on the Omega Point (Tipler) article there (as I stated before). His work on quantum computers is irrelevant to Cosmology (he may have other work which is relevant, such as his book which references Tipler's theory). Putting such comments about his irrelevant "qualifications" in an already overloaded article with an NPOV tag is unnecessary, a waste of space, and lends more credence to the NPOV claims. Please reference Deutsch's book, not his other work. We don't need to know anything else about him on this page, we can quickly click a link to find out everything else about him.

I'm reverting your revert. If this revert of mine is reverted I'm going to arbitration (you're welcome to file for arbitration before I do).

It is standard in factual works that when introducing a new person one gives a brief background as to whom he is and his major claim to fame in the body of the writing in which that person is being invoked (particularly with a person who is not commonly known, as opposed to say, e.g., Hawking), hence, e.g., why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. And in this case, contrary to your assertion, it is relevant as to why anyone would bother to quote Prof. Deutsch's conclusions because it demonstrates that he is apparently very good at doing physics.

Nor have you cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, which makes it appear that you are making up your own rules as you go along to suit your own desires.

Moreover, that passage has existed in the article since August 17, 2007.

And whom are you quoting with the word "qualifications" in quotation marks?

Since you have not cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, I'm going to revert your deletion.--71.49.14.40 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Is the parenthetical of David Deutsch's quantum computer "first" in the History section relevant?

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia style or layout for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCstyle list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.
A user has requested comment on science or mathematics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsci list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Questions/Issues:

  1. Are parentheticals such as this appropriate in the HTTP version of a predominantly hyper-reference encyclopedia?
  2. Is this a relevant qualification for this part of the article?
  3. Is it a necessary or worthwhile addition that introduces David Deutsch's comments on the Omega Point?

Relevant text:

(who in 1985 pioneered the field of quantum computation by being the first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm[1])

Full context of David Deutsch's comments on the Omega Point Theory:

Physicist David Deutsch (who in 1985 pioneered the field of quantum computation by being the first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm[1]) in his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality defends the physics of Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" (of which chapter concentrates mainly on the Omega Point Theory):[2]

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.)

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his "four strands" of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing's theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the 'natural' view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

Below is the back-and-forth which took place on this article's talk page, and on the talk page of User:74.4.219.197 (The first sentence in quotation marks is the edit history comment of 74.4.219.197s first reversion of my edit):

"The so-called "appeal to authority" information on Deutsch quickly details who he is and his major claim to fame, hence why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. Therefore, deletion reverted."

The title "Physicist" before his name quickly details his area of expertise and why anyone would bother to quote his conclusion.

He has an article about him on Wikipedia (therefore he's notable enough to have an article) listing his work and publications, I've transferred the information about him on the Omega Point (Tipler) article there (as I stated before). His work on quantum computers is irrelevant to Cosmology (he may have other work which is relevant, such as his book which references Tipler's theory). Putting such comments about his irrelevant "qualifications" in an already overloaded article with an NPOV tag is unnecessary, a waste of space, and lends more credence to the NPOV claims. Please reference Deutsch's book, not his other work. We don't need to know anything else about him on this page, we can quickly click a link to find out everything else about him.

I'm reverting your revert. If this revert of mine is reverted I'm going to arbitration (you're welcome to file for arbitration before I do). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in factual works that when introducing a new person one gives a brief background as to whom he is and his major claim to fame in the body of the writing in which that person is being invoked (particularly with a person who is not commonly known, as opposed to say, e.g., Hawking), hence, e.g., why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. And in this case, contrary to your assertion, it is relevant as to why anyone would bother to quote Prof. Deutsch's conclusions because it demonstrates that he is apparently very good at doing physics.
Nor have you cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, which makes it appear that you are making up your own rules as you go along to suit your own desires.
Moreover, that passage has existed in the article since August 17, 2007.
And whom are you quoting with the word "qualifications" in quotation marks?
Since you have not cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, I'm going to revert your deletion.--71.49.14.40 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer quotations to scare quotes. Call it a personal predilection I thought was understandable in context of the sentence.
I know of no wikipedia policy either. I pay attention to the content of wikipedia, not it's policies (except when they stab me due to my not knowing about them). I call these things on my own usually. (As if many of wikipedia policies weren't originally thought of by one person who convinced others it was good.) And I haven't really noticed this standard practice for factual works (though that is probably me reading over such entries in practice); I don't think this practice should apply to a hyper-referenced work, for reasons I stated above in my third-to-last sentence.
Coming from a scientific background, I like the credentials cited as reasons to listen to a Point of View to be as relevant as possible. While the Omega POint does talk a bit about quantum computing, it seems fundamentally a cosmological theory.
Perhaps I wouldn't have such an issue with the qualifications discussed if this article was titled "Omega Point (theory)", or somesuch.
Fine whatever, I'll send this to arbitration or moderation, who'll either ignore it or send it somewhere it would be better addressed (hopefully as a wikipedia "policy", whichever way it turns out). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Never mind about the arbitration, I saw a link to "Requests for Comment" on the arbitration page --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I came here from the request for comment. My view is that the parenthetical isn't in itself a problem, it's that it's too wordy. I propose "David Deutch (a pioneer in the field of quantum computation)...". As 71.49.14.40 argues, it's relevant to the article that David Deutch is a pioneer in quantum computation, and not classical fluid dynamics (on the one hand), and not quantum cosmology (on the other). It is, however, quite irrelevant to the article that he was a pioneer in quantum computing because he was the "first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm", and not because he was the first person to propose a quantum computing experimental architecture, or the first person to prove that quantum computing can be more efficient than classical computing, or whatever else. The precise nature of his pioneering contribution says nothing new about his qualifications to comment. So get rid of that extraneous information, and you'll be left with, in my view, a concise and topical and non-distracting parenthetical.

Also, before the parenthetical can go back in, it needs a good source: A neutral, reliable, third-party source that refers to Deutch as a "pioneer" (or some synonym) in the field of quantum computation. Here's one, for example, but it appears to be self-published. Can anyone find something better? :-) --Steve (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto as regards Steve. I am also here from WP:RFC/SCI. I'll have a look and comment in the next couple of days. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As no one appears to have found a neutral source as regards his status as a "pioneer in the field", I'd propose "David Deutch (a researcher in the field of quantum computation). I don't personally see any problem with the parenthetical. It's the lack of a neutral source that's an issue. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations tage in intro

I added the tag because, although the rest of the article is heavily cited, the intro has none, and it contains plenty of questionable content. 128.196.208.1 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)