Proving Astrology

I know how to prove astrology, I just don't have the ability/money/or tools to do so. My hope in writing this is that someone else has one or all of these attributes as well as the drive to make it real.

Background:
They've recently taught computers how to learn, find pattern, and how to apply their learning to find answers to various complex methods. The most famous example of this would be the Watson computer who they taught to play Jeopardy. Another example would be computers/programs that are designed to beat the captcha systems.

Very basically - you feed the computer examples, and from those examples it learns. Then when confronted with something that it hasn't seen before, it looks at the examples and finds one that is closest to it. For example you can give a computer multiple letter "a"s written in various styles, then give it an "a" that it hasn't seen before, and it can tell that it is the letter "a" because of the examples it was previously provided.

So, I got to thinking. One major problem with proving astrology is human error. You can read a chart, you can explain a chart, but no matter how much work you put into it... you can never cover everything. There are a lot of factors involved, the Astrologer relating the information may have negative signs with the person receiving the information, something may be skipped, something may be looked over, things like that.

I've read all these "tests" that people have given to Astrologers over the years, and each and every time I find a flaw. So, I thought, take human error out of the equation as much as possible.

Design a computer program to learn, and find examples in books. Give that computer program the author's chart. Repeat thousands of times until it has enough examples to find the patterns, to learn what words/sentences/phrases/or themes go with various signs/houses/degrees/etc.

Then, feed the computer a book without the author's chart, and have it TELL YOU the author's chart.

Do this and there can be little question on it's validity... then we can start focusing on what's really important. What causes it, because while I believe the planets and stars may point out Astrology (the way the hands on a clock point out the time), I have a really hard time believing they have any effect on it.

Once we find out what causes it, maybe we can learn to reproduce it using field generators. And if we can learn to reproduce it... well...

I forgot to add, using books would be a good way to get past the Observer effect.

Such general pattern recogition programs exist, using techniques like "neural networks" and "genetic algorithms".
Just google for it and you will even find freeware versions.

But it has been tried on astrology and it didn't yield anything significant.
Maybe you can do better.

Rayek said:

I know how to prove astrology, I just don't have the ability/money/or tools to do so. My hope in writing this is that someone else has one or all of these attributes as well as the drive to make it real.

Background:
They've recently taught computers how to learn, find pattern, and how to apply their learning to find answers to various complex methods. The most famous example of this would be the Watson computer who they taught to play Jeopardy. Another example would be computers/programs that are designed to beat the captcha systems.

Very basically - you feed the computer examples, and from those examples it learns. Then when confronted with something that it hasn't seen before, it looks at the examples and finds one that is closest to it. For example you can give a computer multiple letter "a"s written in various styles, then give it an "a" that it hasn't seen before, and it can tell that it is the letter "a" because of the examples it was previously provided.

So, I got to thinking. One major problem with proving astrology is human error. You can read a chart, you can explain a chart, but no matter how much work you put into it... you can never cover everything. There are a lot of factors involved, the Astrologer relating the information may have negative signs with the person receiving the information, something may be skipped, something may be looked over, things like that.

I've read all these "tests" that people have given to Astrologers over the years, and each and every time I find a flaw. So, I thought, take human error out of the equation as much as possible.

Design a computer program to learn, and find examples in books. Give that computer program the author's chart. Repeat thousands of times until it has enough examples to find the patterns, to learn what words/sentences/phrases/or themes go with various signs/houses/degrees/etc.

Then, feed the computer a book without the author's chart, and have it TELL YOU the author's chart.

Do this and there can be little question on it's validity... then we can start focusing on what's really important. What causes it, because while I believe the planets and stars may point out Astrology (the way the hands on a clock point out the time), I have a really hard time believing they have any effect on it.

Once we find out what causes it, maybe we can learn to reproduce it using field generators. And if we can learn to reproduce it... well...

Click to expand...

Hi Rayek!

I sympathise with your frustrations and have felt much the same as you do for many years now.

When I first began the study of astrology in the seventies it was from the perspective of a sceptic, though that attitude changed quickly as I began to practice.

Being a Gemini, however, the fact that I now could see that it worked was not sufficient; I had to then try to find answers as to HOW it could work.

I collected a huge assortment of books covering every aspect of the subject and read and read. But, as you mentioned in your other post I think, there was very little out there which attempted to question or theorised on the actual 'workings' of astrology, it all seemed to focus upon the practical application.

Many popular textbooks contained little hints as to the ancient basis of the science though these hints were often difficult to follow up on. One of these hints for example is the association of Gu La, the goddess of midwives with Aquarius. So - of course - I had to then research into the related fields of mythology and symbolism generally.

There seemed to be so many anomalous details which needed some explanation and I began to look into some of these and eventually found some astonishing answers.

One book I found very helpful was 'The Case For Astrology' by John Anthony West and Jan Gerhard Toonder (1970). This book analyses the history and development of astrology and then goes on to list some of the principal arguments and criticisms of the sceptics.

Following up on one of these points I discovered that the ancients actually did have the answers to many of these issues, though over time the answers had been forgotten and filed away, even by astrologers, as mere curiosities or anomalies.

The point which I decided to focus upon was the 'conception point' which sceptics often throw at astrologers as 'evidence' against.

My first analysis is on-line @ holographic-astrology.com if you would like to read this. The analysis has just been published in the D.A.V's Sternzeit magazine in two parts. I have to add that the text is only an abstract from my studies and was put up rather hurriedly and, when I have a little more time, I will amend the text to include a number of omissions and fix some errors.

In my analysis I point out some of the anomalies which irritated me over the years and provide some possible answers.

Of course, my primary analysis does not provide the unequivocal evidence to finally confirm the scientific foundation of astrology and silence the sceptics, but it certainly points the way to finding the truth upon which it is based.

At this moment I am preparing an abstract for submission to ISAR which I have every confidence will finally provide the evidence needed to silence the detractors for good. My current analysis focusses to the very core of the symbolism and proves, not only the scientific basis of astrology, but the proof that astrology is actually the basis of all science.

There are, of course, many astrologers who resist any attempts to give scientific validity to the subject rather preferring to regard astrology as an 'art' and I have much sympathy with that point of view, though I feel that all art is based upon principles which are essentailly 'scientific' at base.

Here in Germany at least I am aware that there is much focus upon the theoretical side of astrology and there have been many great minds in the past who have furnished us with greater understanding of the craft due to such methods.

Kindest Regards - twinfins