Talk:Omega Point/Archive 1

Archive 1

Goal

Didn't Teilhard de Chardin name as "Omega point" Jesus Christ as goal of evolution? Or something. -- Error

Improper Use of "Evolution"

I've seen the improper use of the term "Evolution" in both the article, and above, in the discussion. It was said in the article that man or his consciousness has an "aim," and above that Jesus was the "goal of evolution." Evolution has no goal, nor an aim. These are improper uses of the word. Evolution is the change of genetic characteristics of a population over time. It is driven by natural selection, sexual selection, neutral selection, and even artificial selection. It is anthropomorphic to say that it has a goal, and it revives 300 year old bad biology that continues to misinform people. --FoodRiot 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Foodriot

(reply) ---> :Artificial selection is intrinsically goal oriented. --Amit 07:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(reply) -------> nope, your wrong. It is completely situational, it has only to do with fitness relative to a given environment. Its biology, not philosophy. When you philosophize it, you screw it up and dont understand it. --FoodRiot 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(reply) ---> Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'evolution':

1. The opening out or unfolding of what is wrapped up (e.g. a roll, a bud, etc.); fig. the spreading out before the mental vision (of a series of objects); the appearance in orderly succession of a long train of events. Also concr. ‘the series of things unfolded or unrolled’ (J.). 5. a. The process of evolving, developing, or working out in detail, what is implicitly or potentially contained in an idea or principle; the development of a design, argument, etc. 6. Biol. a. Of animal and vegetable organisms or their parts: The process of developing from a rudimentary to a mature or complete state.

It appears, FoodRiot that you may be refering to 'theory of evolution' (first propounded under that name by Bonnet 1762) which the OED defines thus: "The origination of species of animals and plants, as conceived by those who attribute it to a process of development from earlier forms, and not to a process of ‘special creation’. Often in phrases doctrine, theory of evolution."

MatthewStevenCarlos 14 May 2006 22:25 EDT (GMT -4).

• • Fuller Sense of Omega Point & 'Evolution' as 'Disclosure'

While this non-goal-oriented understanding of evolutions is certainly au courant especially in the scientific community, such was/is not always the conceptualization - particularly within certain Catholic metaphysics. The consensus is Chardin worked with a teleological metaphysics (literally meaning the 'study of ends/end-points/goals'). From this perspective evolution (literally 'to unroll') might be best understood in parallel to Heidegger's notion of 'unfolding': Dasein (and in fact all Being) slowly (from a linear perspective on temporality, such as Kant postulated, time is structured into human consciousness, although not the absolute perspective of Being itself) disclosing itself to itself - that is to say from the human perspective 'human being' gradually reveals/shows/displays/realizes the vast extent of its own nature to itself. This 'disclosing' (as Heidegger calls it .. meaning a 'making intelligible' which is synonymous with 'truth' / 'alathea' in Greek or (borrowing an American colloquialism) 'the be all, end all') takes place against the horizon of all beings (all existant things), and in fact can not be adequately understood apart from these relationships. The point of full disclosure is what Chardin calls 'the Omega Point'. As Dasein is always unfolding in time, the Omega Point is only realized at the end of linear time (or perhaps synonymous with the end of time).

Now the end of linear time can be understood not only mathmatically, but also metaphysically/ontologically. One possibility from this ontological perspective is that as (following Kant) time exists not objectively but entirely as a structure of human consciousness, then as human consciousness changes so that humans no longer perceive time, time itself will no longer exist (aka 'end').

All of the above is only the philosophy necessary to understand Chardin's conception of the Omega Point. There is still at least one other essential discipline necessary: theology. Chardin was a Catholic priest, let us not forget. The importance that the existential figure of Jesus as the Christ plays in Catholicism in general and for Chardin (how ever liberal his theorization of this doctrinal point) must be grasped in order to fully comprehend his creation/apprehension: 'the Omega Point'. Of course this forum is too limited to allow for a full exegesis, but allow me to provide an incomplete reduction - to 'cut to the chase' sort to speak. Taking into account the above philosophical and theological positions, the Omega Point as expressed by Chardin (rather than those who transpose/translate his ideas into one or another discrete realm of intellectual endevor such as computational theory/artificial intelligence) postulates that Jesus as the 'Christ' was/is in his 'fully human' and 'fully divine' being an instantiation of the most disclosed/unfolded state of Dasein which can ever exist, and in fact will exist 'at the end of time'. Thus temporally as well as ontologically Jesus 'is' the Omega Point.

This has serious implications for philosophy (metaphysics as well as cosmology), physics, and Catholic theology (for which Chardin was censured by the Church administration): it means that the 'eternal' (that which is not bounded by the structure of time) can manifest in its entirety within the realm of temporality (and not destroy temporality); it means that multiple 'realities'/ 'universes' can simultaneously exist (think 'super string theory'); it means that the 'end of the world' has already happened; it means 'the kingdom of God/heaven' or the 'New Jerusalem' already exists and is manifest although 'man does not perceive it'. Most profoundly from the theological perspective it means in some real sense that humanity is evolving into God, and thus human nature is essentially (although perhaps not entirely) divine.

MatthewStevenCarlos 12 May 2006 10:33 EDT (GMT -4).

Slightly random

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)

Rings a bell

This theory (from 1986) sounds awfully like Asimov's "The Last Question" (1950s).

- It was published posthumously due to condemnation by the Catholic Church, the author himself died in 1955. It even says that on his Wikipedia page, so I'm unsure why you got so confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.108.182 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be broken into two

Is the term disambiguation? I usually limit my edits to copyedits, so I don't feel comfortable doing this myself. But really, the article reads terribly right now. It's obviously talking about two very different uses of the term. In the very least discussion of the two usages should separated with subheadings and an outline.

i don't see it- what two different things do you see going on here? --Heah (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Tunnelling

The section about quantum tunnelling:

"...baryon tunnelling as a means of propelling interstellar spacecraft. If the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by this process, then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant, stopping the acceleration, and allowing the universe to collapse into the Omega Point"

doesn't make any kind of physical sense. Quantum tunnelling has nothing to do with propulsion, or particle annihilation, and conservation laws would prevent all matter in the universe from being annihilated in any case (unless an equal amount of anti-matter existed). Did it get muddled in the writing, or is Tipler's "theory" just muddled to begin with?

rem unhelpful link

I removed The Last Question, which i have read, because it's not similar enough to Omega point ideas. I also question, but don't know enough to remove, links to Elisabet Sahtouris (gaia theory and sustainability advocacy are not the same as op), and The Footprints of God (which says nothing to explain the connection).

This raises an interesting point of writing/editing an encyclopedia (and please help this almost-no-longer-a-newbie): given that we have a minor problem with unhelpful links, should we link to articles that say nothing to explain why the link is relevant? Or if we know of a good reason to link which isn't clear from the articles, should we leave the link and add the info to the articles? Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tipler's "recent change". Can we have a link to where he has explained that?

Ordered and linked

Hi all, I tried to order this page a little better because it was talking about many conceptions of the Omega Point without divisions. I think it was important to link Tipler's Omega Point to this page (that's why I did just that:), but I don't think that page is long enough to consider it a "main page".

Also, I think this page still needs to talk more about Chardin's original concept besides the intro. Hope someone helps on that. Thanks! Kreachure 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Infinite amount of percieved time...

Is it just me or does the computer have to last until a singularity is reached in order for there to be infinite percieved time within the simulation? My reasoning is that for there to be an infinite amount of percieved time in the simulation, there has to be an infinite amount of computing capability, which is only achieved when a singularity is reached, by which time the computer cannot possibly exist any longer...Danorux 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I understand some of the finer points of this, but I believe the jist is that by then, we will have a computer capible of "surviving" singularity, if such a thing is possible. 165.134.168.190 17:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

merge of tiplerian omega point

I can see how the language might lead somebody to believe that the tiplerian omega point and the omega point (a much more broad description) should be confined to the same article. However, the two are substantially different. Moreover, the tiplerian omega point article refers to a specific, doctrinal concept -- a concept that also references an individual person's theorems. It seems inappropriate to merge the articles. Consider this simile. These two articles would be like having an article on Yaqui animism and a separate animism article. It just makes sense to me. Lastly, while the merge tags have been added to both articles, and the "discuss" link is part of that template, no discussion has been had. I'm inclined to remove the tags unless somebody would like to explain the thinking behind adding them. 140.90.208.67 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of merging the two articles shows a fundamental lack of understanding tiplerian eschatology. its been a month since the last discussion on the matter and only myself and one other have commented. The tag should be removed. And I think the discussion should have been direction to the other pages talk...but maybe thats a wikipedia thing- to have merge discussions on the talk page of the article where the merge is to go rather than from whence it came, but I think thats wrong. 75.26.5.96 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The City and the Stars

The being Vanamonde from Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the Stars resembles the Omega point to a great degree, better than most of the popular culture references. Anyone else agree enough to add it to the main page? 131.111.135.117 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Omega point is not the technological singularity."

The "autonomous machine computation" mentioned in this section of the article would actually be our own thought processes. I see no real difference, then, between the Singularity and Omega Point.

I agree- a strong technological singularity would contain/connect to the Omega point[s] through physically equivalent simulations of the quantum multiverse and sheer computing power- /:set\AI

Clarify "Transcendent"

Under the heading Five Attributes of the Omega Point, the link transcendent goes to a disambiguation page. I was reading this to learn about the concept, so I have no idea which meaning of "transcendent" is intended. Could a subject matter expert please fix the link? Thanks.

I'm pretty sure it's the philosophical concept that's being referred to, but I'm not an expert. » byeee 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture links

I vote to delete the Stargate reference. this does not seem to have anything to do w giant AI at end of the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vroman (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Humayun Ahmed's novel Omega Point is badly constructed and needs to be edited by someone with a firm grasp of English syntax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.68.2 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nietzschean connection?

I'm not an expert on the subject but reading the article I can't help but wonder that the omega point is essentially the same idea as Nietzsche's conception of the "Superman". Thoughts? Red marquis 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture: Galactic Milieu trilogy (Julian May)

Although it doesn't explicitly use the term Omega point, the idea is used in Julian May's Galactic Milieu novels, and Teilhard de Chardin is frequently refernced by name in relation to the idea of Unity, which seems very similar to Teilhard de Chardin's Omega point. MorkaisChosen 14:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Omega point

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Omega point's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Tipler2005":

• From Frank J. Tipler: 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.
• From Omega Point (Tipler): 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. (Note: citation formatting in the above-quoted passages have been modified for clarity. Typographical errors in the third quoted passage have been corrected, again for clarity.) 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.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questionable editors

The number of self-serving egocentric editors in this article is stunning. The worst and most common edits or discussions seem to merely be a platform for hearing themselves speak. I had higher respect for wiki until this side was revealed... An open encyclopedia is not a growth medium for self-important opinionated idealists. Grow up! Also, every single article doesn't need a "criticism" or "controversy" section. One idea which conflicts with the idea in the article hardly merits it's addition to the article, and represents the obvious objections of some individual reader to the plausibility of what they are reading. These are NOT worthy of our time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.196.92 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sampi point&Sho point

Beyond Omega Point is too Sampi Point.

Five Attributes of the Sampi Point

• Already existing.
  Only thus can the rise of the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) towards higher stages of consciousness be explained.

• Personal – an intellectual being and not an abstract idea.
  The complexification of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but accordingly to more personalization, of which human beings are the highest attained form in the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe). They are completely individualized, free centers of operation. It is in this way that man is said to be made in the image of God, who is the highest form of personality. Teilhard expressly stated that in the Sampi Point, when the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) becomes One, human persons will not be suppressed, but super-personalized. Personality will be infinitely enriched. This is because the Sampi Point unites whole saveable creation, and the more it unites, the more the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) complexifies and rises in consciousness. Thus, as God creates the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) evolves towards higher forms of complexity, consciousness, and finally with humans, personality, because God, who is drawing the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) towards Him, is a person.

• Transcendent.
  The Sampi Point cannot be the result of the saveable creation's (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) final complexification of itself on consciousness. Instead, the Sampi Point must exist even before the saveable creation's (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) evolution, because the Sampi Point is responsible for the rise of the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) towards more complexity, consciousness and personality. Which essentially means that the Sampi Point is outside the framework in which the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) rises, because it is by the attraction of the Sampi Point that the saveable creation (Heaven+Purgatory+Universe) evolves towards Him.

• Autonomous – that is, free from the limitations of space (nonlocality) and time (atemporality).

• Irreversible, that is, attainable.

Hell is excluded, because in Hell condemned sinners are against any Godful progress. 79.162.51.29 (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to image above, we too have Sho point, which means final state, where maximum spiritual capacity of all creation is finally achieved, and where evolution finally stops. 79.191.252.45 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

rm

because nothing but the thread below (out of chronological order) so moved it here. Replace the tag if you want to actively service the issue. Lycurgus (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved what was referred to above as being below as noted in log for this back page. Lycurgus (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cacrotty. Peer reviewers: Garrettspindell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging Omega Point (Tipler) (redux)

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

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

I agree. For now, I'll update the redirect and will look to improving this section here when I have a moment. By way of informing editors here, the consensus was to merge the other article into the author's page. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Tipler's stuff should be stowed away into the article dedicated to its creator, but disagree in regard to Teilhard's concept of the Omega point. The same kind of "merger" was proposed for the Timewave zero article. In the result, Timewave zero was redirected to 2012 phenomenon without any merger, i.e., was, in effect, deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.15.52 (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.--109.151.214.30 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Original research, crystal ball?

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)

He is heretic and panentheist this teilhard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.49.5 (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author of the article claims that in the Omega Point there will be only one person, but that is refuted by the section "Characteristics of the Omega Point"... and by "The Fenomenon of Man", and many other works by Teilhard, where he makes claims like this: "Union diferentiates" (this is precisely in "The Fenomenon of Man"), trying to state that, the more united the participants in a union, the more different from each other they become. So, I consider those claims about a single person in the final stage should be corrected, in order to reflect accuratelly Teilhard´s thought. Miguel 190.79.224.88 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

—Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de ♦ The Phenomenon of Man

89.110.23.207 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please

I don't know who wrote this, but it is clearly entirely original research with no basis in science even though it addresses the topic as that it were unequivocally true and accepted. However, anyone can see that it is a bunch of nonsense, with no indication that there is the slightest bit of controversy as to whether or not it's actual science (as it charades to be) or a sloppy ontological argument shoving in terms from actual science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.6.92 (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.--109.151.214.30 (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

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)