12-17-2020, 11:43 PM
"Quantum entanglement theory has proven spooky action at a distance."
The trouble with using quantum entanglement as an "explanation" for Astrology is that we really don't have entanglement examples over that kind of distance. A recent exploration into a new type of computing, "quantum" computing looks to use entanglement. Yet, they have to work very, very hard to get the entangled entities far enough apart - we're talking tiny distances - to manifest the desired phenomenon.
Eric, you and I have gone over this many times. For a scientific principle to be demonstrated, there has to be a hypothesis of how it does what it does. One posits a physical principle or process at work that explains the phenomenon. Then one tests that process. Holding other variables constant during the experiment is handy if it can be done. So, if we posit an hypothesis for a planetary alignment of some sort affecting an event here on earth, we need something - what? Gravity? That sure seems like a good place to start. It's something we can measure. Then we ask ourselves, what would, say, Jupiter's gravity do to "something" on earth that might cause or prevent an event to occur? Right away, doesn't it seem that the impact would be vanishingly small compared to other gravitational forces? So, fine. Maybe that's not it then. What other physical "something" might it be? Consciousness? Spiritual force of some kind? Gosh, those are hard to get one's hands around.
Seems like we're left with correlation, huh? Something happens when Mars and Venus and the moon are wherever - did their being in that position "cause" or "influence" the something that happened? Gets pretty rabbit-hole-y pretty fast, doesn't it.
But you're right! Strauss/Howe's system is very much a correlation "science." Yet, do the cycles cause the events? Or do the events merely run on cycles? That's a very important question. My money would be on the events running naturally on cycles. Astrology also runs on cycles. So why wouldn't it make sense for many, many other things to simply run on cycles that match up with. parallel with or oppose the astrological cycles? That actually seems like more of a simple (Occam's Razor) explanation.
The sunrise and sunset run on cycles. The phases of the moon run on cycles. Seasons come in cycles. Do they cause one another? Is one the root cause? Well, sorta. The physical laws constrain their motions and each individual motion affects the other. By using the phases of the moon, we certainly could develop a system to predict seasons. Would that suggest that the moon causes seasons? No. Would we call that an astrological "system" for predicting something? I dunno - you tell me! It makes as much sense, actually MUCH more sense than lining up planets and trying to predict a political outcome.
But ... Bless your heart, Eric. You like it. It does something for you. It's entertaining. And ... anything is possible. We certainly have not solved all the mystery of the cosmos.
BTW, have you sampled the Harvard physicist Max Tegmark? "Our Mathematical Universe." Fascinating read. He's one of the "infinite universes" dudes. This book is hard to follow, but I was able to get enough to stay interested by understanding some of the high points.
The trouble with using quantum entanglement as an "explanation" for Astrology is that we really don't have entanglement examples over that kind of distance. A recent exploration into a new type of computing, "quantum" computing looks to use entanglement. Yet, they have to work very, very hard to get the entangled entities far enough apart - we're talking tiny distances - to manifest the desired phenomenon.
Eric, you and I have gone over this many times. For a scientific principle to be demonstrated, there has to be a hypothesis of how it does what it does. One posits a physical principle or process at work that explains the phenomenon. Then one tests that process. Holding other variables constant during the experiment is handy if it can be done. So, if we posit an hypothesis for a planetary alignment of some sort affecting an event here on earth, we need something - what? Gravity? That sure seems like a good place to start. It's something we can measure. Then we ask ourselves, what would, say, Jupiter's gravity do to "something" on earth that might cause or prevent an event to occur? Right away, doesn't it seem that the impact would be vanishingly small compared to other gravitational forces? So, fine. Maybe that's not it then. What other physical "something" might it be? Consciousness? Spiritual force of some kind? Gosh, those are hard to get one's hands around.
Seems like we're left with correlation, huh? Something happens when Mars and Venus and the moon are wherever - did their being in that position "cause" or "influence" the something that happened? Gets pretty rabbit-hole-y pretty fast, doesn't it.
But you're right! Strauss/Howe's system is very much a correlation "science." Yet, do the cycles cause the events? Or do the events merely run on cycles? That's a very important question. My money would be on the events running naturally on cycles. Astrology also runs on cycles. So why wouldn't it make sense for many, many other things to simply run on cycles that match up with. parallel with or oppose the astrological cycles? That actually seems like more of a simple (Occam's Razor) explanation.
The sunrise and sunset run on cycles. The phases of the moon run on cycles. Seasons come in cycles. Do they cause one another? Is one the root cause? Well, sorta. The physical laws constrain their motions and each individual motion affects the other. By using the phases of the moon, we certainly could develop a system to predict seasons. Would that suggest that the moon causes seasons? No. Would we call that an astrological "system" for predicting something? I dunno - you tell me! It makes as much sense, actually MUCH more sense than lining up planets and trying to predict a political outcome.
But ... Bless your heart, Eric. You like it. It does something for you. It's entertaining. And ... anything is possible. We certainly have not solved all the mystery of the cosmos.
BTW, have you sampled the Harvard physicist Max Tegmark? "Our Mathematical Universe." Fascinating read. He's one of the "infinite universes" dudes. This book is hard to follow, but I was able to get enough to stay interested by understanding some of the high points.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]