Astrology and science

[Eric the Green]

(12-17-2020, 11:43 PM)TnT Wrote: "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.

As I remember it, yes we do have entanglement over that kind of distance.
https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-qu...aphic.html
In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

On this Bohr was right and Einstein was wrong

Quote: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.

Many times? I guess so. I probably explained everything I can say in my above post. For me, the great thing about astrology is that it demonstrates that reality goes beyond physical determinism, or as I called it above, efficient cause and effect, or it could be called mechanical cause and effect. For those with my kind of bent, the world (the universe) is not a machine. Mechanistic determinism was created in order for us to make machines. Machines operate according to those principles. But life and consciousness do not, and can't be explained by them. So astrology helps fill that purpose. But as I said, having humans as its object of study, precision and definite predictions are not possible. If you wish to stick to the mechanistic view, that is your perogative. I understand if you can't quite get other kinds of connection. In my view though, science no longer disallows astrology, which is not to say it has proven it valid. Quantum mechanics is a whole different ball of wax from the original 17th century kind.

But for those objects less alive, the scientific method is proper and necessary. Even to a large extent, we can learn a lot about living objects and their affairs through physical science too. Your point of view is more narrow than mine. I respect physical science. You do not respect the esoteric "sciences" so much.

Quote: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.

I would tend to think the infinite universes lie beyond the distance of those we can detect. Not the parallel universe or many worlds hypothesis. Just my opinion.

It seems like the astrological cycles do a lot to clarify the other events that run in cycles, and symbolize the zeitgeist of the times. Not always, but often. It became for me an index or clock as David Horn said, but it goes beyond this because the planets and signs represent archetypes, similar to those in T4T. That is the element that allows astrology to bring history and politics and culture to life. The Planetary Dynamics theory I developed, which extends Spiral Dynamics and gives it focus, is a good example of how the archetypes explain social evolution. Did I post that essay here? http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

But astrology to me is more than a matter of "doing something for me," and "I like it." I was convinced of it through my own process of verification. I could not ignore this. As I have explained, I started reading about the planets and signs and their meanings, and I asked myself, if this stuff is true, where are the planets in my chart? I was in a period of great change and discovery in my worldview then. I felt I was having mystical experiences or awakenings and an opening to higher consciousness, even though I did not take LSD like many others in the late-Silent to middle-Boomer 60s generation were doing. But it was like a contact high. The Strauss and Howe definition that I learned in 1997 of the prophet generation as "powered by a spiritual awakening" certainly fit me to a T, Mr. TnT!

So I identified with the planet Neptune, "the mystic" (as Gustav Holst called it, I later learned). It must be in conjunction with my Sun, I immediately thought. I looked it up, and to my amazement, it was in close conjunction to my Sun. The chances of that are about 100 to one, in my case. Then I thought, I am something of an energetic, self-expressive person with a big ego, so there must be something powerful in Leo. And I looked it up, and Mars and Pluto in Leo were aligned in my chart, which fit my expectation exactly. And I won't go through all of this, but everything in my chart was as I predicted before looking it up. So to the surprise of my pioneering biologist mother, I rode home that day and told her that I thought astrology was valid! The actual process of this verification and discovery went on for a year and a half; by 1969 I learned to set up my chart, and verified that my rising sign and planet was the one I predicted. Uranus in Cancer was exactly on my Ascendant.

But, this first discovery about Neptune and so on was in late 1967. A few months later, I thought about what was happening in society. There must be an outer-invisible planet conjunction going on, I predicted, because revolution, unconventional cultures and transcendent experiences were happening, and those planets indicate this. And then soon I thought, when was this awakening energy at its peak? The conjunction must have been when I felt this energy the strongest, when my own awakening took off, in late June 1966. So, I looked it up, and Uranus and Pluto were exactly aligned in a rare conjunction at this exact time. It was a couple of years later that I started thinking, but what about all the other outer-planet conjunctions? What did they correspond to? Was there a cycle? Thus began my book, which was published on the very same day as T4T in January 1997, exactly during the same conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune that was also going on in 1971 when I first started on it.

So, whatever science-minded people, of which I had been one, might say, I could not ever deny astrology again. It was not only "correlations," but my predictions of where planets would be before looking them up. And the evidence, and my correct predictions, mounted further, and I became the only prophet to have predicted so many major events in the following years. People may quibble with me about that, but I know what I predicted and what I witnessed. It's like I have had inside information. T4T is a natural ally in this work, because the modern saeculum was defined in T4T as exactly the same length as one Uranus cycle around the Sun-- without them mentioning Uranus or The Sun. Their cycle was one that astrologers already knew about.

So, perhaps I would be more successful and popular if I had gone into science or computers, like my parents would have preferred. But I was already a rather eccentric and lonely guy, and I was not in tune with established culture. I was as natural and as fully an example of the prophet archetype as anyone that could be found.

Physical science tells you what calculations are needed to predict what reactions will occur or whether your building will stand. Astrology is something different; it is something you can feel in your bones.