Hasta La Gadget!

Bestselling author Eric Metaxas’s recent op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on how science increasingly proves God immediately became both exceedingly popular and controversial. (Content is behind a paywall. So here’s his video version.) So it’s worth asking one more time: Does the fine-tuning argument work?

The fine-tuning argument works or doesn’t work (as philosopher Ric Machuga shows) depending on what we ask of it. We certainly cannot expect more than it can deliver. (And, though I certainly don’t entirely disagree with Eric, he expects the argument to carry a greater load than it can reasonably bear.)

The fine-tuning argument does not prove that God as the Designer of the universe exists if proof means a knock-down, drag-out, deductive proof, the conclusions of which cannot reasonably be denied. It does, nonetheless, offer evidences of God’s design. Fine tuning is consistent what we would expect from a Designer, and it supports theism better than materialism. 

Two specific points must be dealt with right away. First of all, a clarification: here we are in the realm of suppositional arguments, which proceed as follows: If we suppose there to be a God who desired the universe, we should expect that this universe would have evidences of the design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is consistent with God’s design. Therefore it is reasonable to assert that God exists. 

Secondly, a definition: What is the fine-tuning argument? I’ll let Wikipedia be my guide: 

“the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.”

What then are those specific parameters that are fine tuned to create a universe with moral, intelligent life? Physicists have identified over thirty discrete, precisely calibrated parameters that produced the universe we know. One way to describe the precision of these parameters is that even one is “wildly improbable.” Oxford physicist Roger Penrose commented that the “phase-space volume” requires a meticulous fine-tuning such that the

“Creator’s aim must have been [precise] to an accuracy of… a number almost impossible to write, ‘1’ followed by 10 to the 123rd zeroes.”

So far this might seem conclusive to many readers. But there’s one key chink in its armor, which represents the best argument against fine-tuning: it’s a tautology. Simply put, the only reason we can have this conversation is that we are already here in this type of universe, however improbable it might be.

Fair enough–I’ve already conceded that this is not a deductive proof for God that leaves no room for disagreement. It is a suppositional argument that offers confirmation for the judgment that this universe has design and that design is confirmed, to some degree, by the incredible particularity of its parameters.

I offer an analogy as my riposte. Suppose that tonight is my wedding anniversary. In one scenario, when Laura arrives home I declare, “Laura, I’ve been planning to celebrate this anniversary big time!” I then hurriedly call a pizza company to deliver, grab a mixed set of plastic glasses, accompanied by paper napkins and plates (there’s nothing washed of the same set), fumble through some music on my iPod for background, and the night begins… as best it can. Second scenario: before Laura leaves work, a limo picks her up, with me in the backseat, pouring Veuve Clicquot into luxurious champagne flutes, and I say, “Here’s to our anniversary!” We arrive home, and a chef is set to serve dinner at our house on a candle-lit table with crystal glassware while a string quartet plays in the background. Etc… Etc… (You get the picture.)

At this risk of eviscerating any subtlety to this analogy, which one of these scenarios makes Laura smile and think, “Greg really planned this event”? Which of the two scenarios has more specific parameters and therefore better supports my contention that I really intended to celebrate my anniversary?

All the widely calibrated, fine-tuned parameters have led some (like me) to agree with the conclusions of the director of the NIH, Francis Collins: 

“At the most fundamental level, it’s a miracle that there’s a universe at all. It’s a miracle that it has order, fine-tuning that allows the possibility of complexity, and laws that follow precise mathematical formulas. Contemplating this, an open-minded observer is almost forced to conclude that there must be a ‘mind’ behind all this. To me, that qualifies as a miracle, a profound truth that lies outside of scientific explanation.”

I join hands with Collins. Fine tuning adds scientific evidence that God created the world out of love for us in order that we could be in relationship with our Creator. This confirming evidence in the structure of creation appears to be the fingerprint of God.

“If you will stay close to nature, to its simplicity, to the small things hardly noticeable, those things can unexpectedly become great and immeasurable.” — Rainer Maria Rilke

Maybe Wearables provide us with the opportunity to get a step closer to nature-within ourselves and in the environment around us.

In that vein, I would like to share some of the thoughts around Wearables and our relationship with the IoT from the WearablesTech conference in Santa Clara, CA that I attended last week.

Further questions that came to mind were:
How can we use the latest innovations in Tech to improve our well being, sink into our bodies and revel at the insights that come through self awareness more. Can we use technological tools for this purpose? How can we link ourselves more clearly to the world in us and the world around us? How can we use Wearables for stress relief and increase our clarity of thinking and quality of life with them and maybe even through them?

What truly is the “quantified self”? And how useful is it really?

As we walk through our own journey of stress
Let us remember
the functions
of the body-

We know
that
the one thing
that we-
all humans-
have in common
is
A body
The one common denominator
which unites us all
A body

We all feel through it
We all experience through it
We all live in it

Stress

The buzzing thoughts
the whirls
of our minds
regularily
take us out of our bodies
we run
we forget
that we are even in one

We are in a body
A body we are
And
maybe sometimes it even is a nuisance
not efficient enough
not fast enough
not productive enough
SLOW
Sick
Painful
Edgy

We can adorn it

We can now measure it
We can dialog
with it
like we never have before
We can climb out of the box with it
and go beyond
what is expected of us
into the realm of the divine

By listening in
into our body
For that
we can nourish it
appreciate it
sink into it
Move it
Love it
and

Breathe it
or let it
breathe us

Move with it
let it move us
sink deeply into our needs
and
use it as
a springboard
to replenish
the body of the environment
Earth

We can communicate
through it-
Dance

We can use it to integrate-
Walk

We can communicate
to the outside environment-
Facial expression

We can communicate with others through it-
Team sports

We can use it to shake off nagging thoughts-
Sports

Or we can wage war with our body-
against others
and against ourselves

Or we can learn to understand ourselves
and our bodies
as well as our emotions

We have a choice
on how to do that-
Imagine
We can direct objects through focus
We can even make drones fly*

When we come back into the house of our bodies fully

We can stay there
peacefully
in acceptance
and growth

We can use motion as a healer
We can tap into wearables
as a thermometer
We can fall back into nature

to ground back into ourselves
at the deepest level

Shift to move
and change some of the patterns
Rewrite the brain paths

And with that change the chemistry of our bodies
Understand our chemistry
and-
because of that-
rewrite
our brain paths
Become one with the movement of what already is
Attune to the reality
without veils

In the midsts of stress thorns

find the possibilities of light

Connect to our
information highway from the body
our lamina 1

in a peaceful way to our
somatosensory cortex
Heal
our ravaged
and stressed amygdala

Enjoy the
flow
of serotonin
coming to the prefrontal cortex
by walking
by moving
by expressing the rhythm of
our heart*

Maybe with the help of a wearable?

How do we connect with ourselves and others-
What are the tools that could make us more aware, less stressed.
Maybe more in synch with our own flow and that of the flow of the environment around us.

So that we know what we need, when, what the situation requires or, what the next successful action is. So that we manage to avoid stress loops and instead notice that where we are off balance. That we need to take care of ourselves and readjust adequately.

In an ideal world none of us would need these pointers, there would be no trauma, no chronic stress, no violence and no dis-ease. To fine tune ourselves to our bodies and our environment we may be better served to put on a wearable instead of swallowing a pill to numb us.
What wearables could help us help ourselves and each other in the most effective way?

The WearablesTech Conference opened up a whole world of possibilities of new wearables, and creative possibilities.
Wearables that can be swallowed(Motilis Pill), put into your eyes (Sensimed Triggerfish), listened to, and, of course, made. Technical workshops abounded as to the how of Wearables, the tech inside, the new designs the possibilities of bringing it all together. Hardware, software, app development and new materials were explained, shown and demonstrated. A heaven of circuits that can be thin as paper (by FlexibleCircuit Technologies), materials that can resist any weather changes (UICO technology that looks like a see through plastic), even a trip to the north pole. Older wearables such as HeartMath were also sharing some of their approaches with a presentation on Heart Rate Variability and how it is applied in, influenced and changed through a Wearable. The conference was a deep dive into the still evolving tech movement and a new maker movement on the rise.

So far, it seems clear to me that the quantified self is useful when it provides us with an insight into our own bodies and minds.

Other than the familiar iWatch, Sony wearables, Fitbit and more, there are specific wearables that target chronic stress symptoms in a different way.
Here is a short list of Wearables for stress relief through training of self awareness that I have found most interesting up to date. I have included their specific area of connection to the body.

The Muse-EEG brainwaves. Wearable to calm the mind.

HeartMath wearable– Heart Rate Variability. Slows the organism to a state of relaxation where the brain waves are in synch with the heart beat patterns.

Spire-the breath. A wearable that attaches to you and provides feedback on breathing patterns. Let’s one know when it is time to catch one’s breath.

Votsh Waves-Emotions. Light lamps that soothe your mood and can be placed on your desk or mounted on the wall. They are connectable to various wearables and music sources.

Mindspa-Brainwaves. A deep relaxation tool using glasses with light patterns, sound and guided meditations for various occasions.

There are of course others that are more complex but just as fun even though they are used more typically for Consciousness Hacking and research
Neurosky pro
or the Emotiv EPOC for research as well as hacking

Art
Woman climbing out of a box
Marck

Sensory Perception Chairs
by Alan Macy

Sturmtruppe-geht-unter-gas-vor

VR guided meditation snippet
Your house

Science
*It is scientifically proven that our connections in the brain ultimately function more effectively when lamina 1 and the somatosensori cortex are lined up with the pre frontal cortex rather than being caught in the side loop of the stressed out amygdala. What a beautiful flow results when all the circuits are connected through an ever fluid flow of seratonin rather than cortisol.
See Dr Daniel Siegel’s work at the Mindsight Institute and Peter A. Levine PhD therapies to let go of trauma for more information.

Live demonstration at the WearableTech Conference-
*Live demonstration of how to command drones through focus in the presentation by Jim Mc Keeth of Embarcadero

As the public has learned of health risks tied to chemicals in everyday products, many companies have responded by eliminating, one by one, the suspected cancer causers, brain damagers and hormone disruptors. But even prompt action doesn’t entirely appease some health experts, who warn of a problematic pattern.

“We’re playing toxic whack-a-mole,” said Arlene Blum, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, and executive director of the nonprofit Green Science Policy Institute. “When after a great deal of research and testing, a chemical is found to be harmful, then the tendency is to replace it with as similar a chemical as possible. That’s the easiest thing to do.”

History has shown, however, that the substitutes may prove equally harmful. Take, for example, the widespread replacement of bisphenol A with bisphenol S in products such as hard plastic water bottles and cash register receipts. New research suggests the latter chemical may be just as harmful to human health.

On Tuesday, a coalition of medical, consumer and worker safety groups attempted to halt this cycle for flame retardants. Led by Blum’s institute and Earthjustice, they produced a petition asking federal regulators to block an entire class of the chemical concoctions called organohalogens from their widespread use in four categories of consumer products.

When Congress banned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 1977 due to health concerns, the flame retardant industry replaced them with a chemical cousin, polybrominated diphenyl ether. When PBDE was discovered to be just as toxic, it was phased out in 2005, and the industry looked again for easily swappable substitutes to continue meeting flammability standards. Among the popular picks were chlorinated Tris and Firemaster 550, both of which have now been linked with their own growing lists of health concerns, including heart disease, obesity and cancer.

All of these chemicals are organohalogens, still the most common class of flame retardant additive. They can migrate out of consumer products to permeate, and persist in, the environment — riding house dust, even infiltrating jars of peanut butter and the bloodstreams of nearly all Americans.

“The evidence is quite convincing that exposure in the womb to these flame retardants causes brain damage, lower IQs and persistent behavior problems in children,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the department of preventative medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

“It’s just been one bad actor after another,” added Landrigan, who signed the petition. “You’d think we’d be smart enough to do a little better.”

In addition to developing fetuses and young children — the latter of whom tend to crawl on dust-laden floors and put their hands in their mouths — chemical and manufacturing workers and firefighters are at increased risk from exposure to flame retardants.

Tuesday’s petition, aimed at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, targets four categories of consumer goods: children’s products, furniture, mattresses and the casings around electronics. While chemicals themselves are generally under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, they enter the CPSC’s domain as part of a consumer product.

“This falls squarely within what CPSC is set up to do. They have the authority,” said Eve Gartner, a staff attorney at Earthjustice. “In some ways, products with these flame retardants are like toys with small parts. They have inherent dangers. There’s not really anything consumers can do to protect themselves against these chemicals.”

Scott Wolfson, a CPSC spokesman, noted that the commission had received the petition. The next step, he said, is determining whether it “meets the requirements set out in the Commission’s petition regulations.”

“CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye has said publicly that in the course of CPSC’s work on issues like preparing a federal standard for upholstered furniture (which is ongoing), he does not want children to be exposed to harmful flame retardants,” said Wolfson in an email.

He highlighted previous comments in which Kaye had lamented the lack of a “clear, systematic and holistic organization or plan to the way federal agencies are tasked with studying the basic toxicity and exposure scenarios of chemicals.” That, combined with a “severe lack of federal funding as well as authorities to quickly and comprehensively address chemical toxicity and exposure,” said Kaye, has forced agencies, including the CPSC, to “proceed in piecemeal fashion.”

The American Chemistry Council, meanwhile, criticized the petition. “It’s unfortunate these groups are presenting families with the false choice between chemical safety and fire safety when we can have both,” the national industry group said in a statement. “Flame retardants have been proven to be a critical component of fire safety and can help save lives.”

“This petition unfortunately lumps together a broad range of substances with different properties and uses without any consideration of their individual safety or benefits,” added Bryan Goodman, a spokesman with the American Chemistry Council, in an email.

Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, shared a similar concern about the petition’s broad reach. “I’m not a big fan of flame retardants being used,” she said. “But I think a blanket banning of anything with a halogen on it may not be the best approach.”

Birnbaum suggested there might be some circumstances in which certain organohalogen chemicals may still prove critical for fire safety. “And I’m not convinced that some of the non-halogenated flame retardants are any better,” she said.

While organohalogens still make up the majority of flame retardants in consumer products, another class — phosphates — is coming into use. Blum noted that these chemicals, too, are “looking worrisome.” Yet she added that there was not yet enough evidence regarding their toxicity to add them to the petition.

Health experts and advocates seem to agree that before looking for a safer alternative, manufacturers should determine if a substitute is even necessary. Can a couch — or mattress or children’s toy — be constructed differently so that chemical additives aren’t needed in the first place? It turns out that flame retardants added to furniture may not actually slow fires.

Spurred in part by mounting evidence of health problems associated with flame retardant additives, as well as a Chicago Tribune investigation that found the additives may offer no meaningful fire protection, the state of California last year revised its Technical Bulletin 117 to remove a decades-old requirement that flame retardants be included in the stuffing of upholstered furniture. The state rule, which became the de facto standard for the rest of the nation, meant use of the chemicals flourished for years. However, as Blum noted, California’s updated standard still does not forbid flame retardants outright.

How a CPSC ban on organohalogens would affect the furniture industry, one of the major users of flame retardants, is not yet clear. “We have just become aware of this petition and have not had the opportunity to fully investigate its potential impact on our industry,” said Andy Counts, CEO of the American Home Furnishings Association, which has previously opposed measures that could increase chemical risks to its customers or employees.

Organohalogen flame retardants are the first of six entire classes of chemicals that Blum and her colleagues intend to address. This broader approach, they argue, could prove a more effective way to increase the chemical safety of household products.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the EPA has banned just five chemicals and has required testing for only about 200 of the more than 80,000 permitted for use in the United States. A bipartisan bill unveiled in Congress earlier this month shows some promise of reforming the outdated law. Yet the legislation has also set off heated debate. Some public health advocates warn, for example, that a federal law could stymie swifter chemical safety efforts by states, several of which have already proposed bans on flame retardants.

“Bans take a really long time. TSCA reform is taking a really long time,” said Blum. “And then there are so many chemicals and so much testing that needs to be done. So let’s find a way to act on what we know, rather than wait for such a long time for a process that may or may not turn out to be effective.”

PlayStation Home, one of the most ambitious (and weirdest) things Sony has ever done with video games, closes down today. It will not be missed, but it should at least be remembered.

Read more…

Sony has announced the new Limited Edition PlayStation 4 Batman: Arkham Knight bundle. With the bundle comes a Steel Grey PS4 console decked out with a partial silhouette of Batman and a subtle emblem reading out the name of the game. A controller with the same steel grey color is included with the bundle, as well as the expected game. … Continue reading