waybread
Well-known member
This is no explanation. How would Mercury or Mars influence weather & climate-- for starters? The sun's influence is obvious, but then that's not astrology.
The clockwork of Astrology
- Thread starter aldebaran
- Start date
This is no explanation. How would Mercury or Mars influence weather & climate-- for starters? The sun's influence is obvious, but then that's not astrology.
waybread
Well-known member
This is the basic position of statistics. It shows correlation. Any causality has to be inferred, extraneous to the data.
Also, astrology does not work a lot of the time. Possibly this is due to poor chart-reading. Or possibly because a horoscope contains hundreds, if not thousands, of interacting data-bytes, we can't always predict when or how placement A will affect placement N.
waybread
Well-known member
Did you ever take a class in statistics? Basically you look for correlations between two or more variables.
If two variables correlate in the same way 100% of the time, we probably have a scientific law. But real life is not so simple. Neither is astrology. Intervening variables can lower the correlation percentage. It may be that if two variables correlate in the same way 75% of the time, that is statistically very significant.
We have to look further to explain the other 25%.
A big problem with horoscope reading is that a lot of variables are not even astrological. Gender, ethnicity, and nationality, for example, cannot be read off a horoscope; yet these variables have big impacts on people's lives.
waybread
Well-known member
Aldebaran, did you read my post #4? If so, did you digest/understand it?
Talking about causality, as though planets "caused" human behaviours, is barking up the wrong tree. For one thing, Vedic, modern, and traditional western have very different methods, and even different zodiacs (sidereal vs. tropical.) Each is capable of both good results and egregious errors of prediction and character delineation.
Then planetary causality kind of goes out the window with horary astrology.
So which is the "real" astrology in which you do not believe?
Look at astrology as a process that takes place in the mind of the astrologer. The horoscope is a form of graphic communication.
Once you're there, we can take it further.
Talking about causality, as though planets "caused" human behaviours, is barking up the wrong tree. For one thing, Vedic, modern, and traditional western have very different methods, and even different zodiacs (sidereal vs. tropical.) Each is capable of both good results and egregious errors of prediction and character delineation.
Then planetary causality kind of goes out the window with horary astrology.
So which is the "real" astrology in which you do not believe?
Look at astrology as a process that takes place in the mind of the astrologer. The horoscope is a form of graphic communication.
Once you're there, we can take it further.
waybread
Well-known member
Occam's razor actually is more like, the proposition requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.
Of course the simple proposition might be dead wrong, anyway.
Alderberan, howbeit you return to basics. Like what do you think astrology is, anyway?
And what simple inferences do you make about it that might be dead wrong?
One of these might be of a simple linear cause-and-effect model.
Astrology operates more like a complex system, with hundreds of interacting variables.
waybread
Well-known member
You don't believe that "all power" is given to the planets. This would make you a mere robot or wind-up doll, merely playing out a script set up in the sky long before you were born. There is no "you" whatsoever here, merely an intersection of a body with a moment in linear time.
Think synchronicity, without necessary causality. You might not be a separate entity from the planets.
If you're at all religious, think about God (however named and understood in your universe) as the Creator. If you're scientifically minded, think about the cosmos as a complex system.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Is this your idea of a little joke?
The gravitational pull of Saturn or Mercury on you is negligible. Whatever it might be, it certainly doesn't operate at the level of traditional astrology's table of essential dignities. The moon exerts tides, but this doesn't operate at the level of astrology, with its signs, houses, aspects, and dignities.
waybread
Well-known member
Indeed, time is very unreliable when it comes to natal charts. Nowadays I prefer Ptolemy's ''Animodar'' to Thrasyllus, but the principle is the same, birth can occur only under a certain configuration of the heavens.
What configuration would that be? Today on planet earth, 3 babies are born every second. Or 4 babies per second, according to some sources.
david starling
Well-known member
A classic example of Occam's razor is Kepler's discovery of elliptical orbits, which enabled him to comprise the three laws of planetary motion. It was clearly simpler than the ancient Earth-centered epicycles. Even the Copernican model with its perfectly circular orbits required a more complex arrangement than the elliptical, heliocentric model.
david starling
Well-known member
"There are known knowns. These are things that we know we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns." -{Donald Rumsfeld} 
What data are required in order to cast a horoscope? Yes indeed, we need an exact time and an exact place. We need to define an exact and unique Moment in Spacetime.
This Moment is defined and described by the cosmic elements we have chosen to use as our astrological tools -- planets, signs, aspects and such.
Just what is it that is described by this horoscope? It is not a person, or a question about a missing cat. Our only input was Time and Place (Spacetime), so that the only thing the arrangement of the heavens can directly describe is the Moment itself and nothing more.
In his introduction to Wilhelm's "The Golden Flower", Carl Jung says that Whatever is born of a given moment is of the nature of that moment.
To tell Ms Jane Jones that "This is Your Horoscope" is inaccurate. It is really the description of a moment in spacetime, and Ms Jane Jones is of the nature of that moment.
Here we see that causation is not necessary; it is possible but not necessary.
This "no causation" works, I think, because the universe is One. We might say that the Moment and the person born in it are Identities; they are One.
This still leaves us with predestination, which might be taken as a sort of influence or causation.
This Moment is defined and described by the cosmic elements we have chosen to use as our astrological tools -- planets, signs, aspects and such.
Just what is it that is described by this horoscope? It is not a person, or a question about a missing cat. Our only input was Time and Place (Spacetime), so that the only thing the arrangement of the heavens can directly describe is the Moment itself and nothing more.
In his introduction to Wilhelm's "The Golden Flower", Carl Jung says that Whatever is born of a given moment is of the nature of that moment.
To tell Ms Jane Jones that "This is Your Horoscope" is inaccurate. It is really the description of a moment in spacetime, and Ms Jane Jones is of the nature of that moment.
Here we see that causation is not necessary; it is possible but not necessary.
This "no causation" works, I think, because the universe is One. We might say that the Moment and the person born in it are Identities; they are One.
This still leaves us with predestination, which might be taken as a sort of influence or causation.
Last edited:
I don't know how, but that it does.
Why wouldn't the Sun's influence be considered astrology?
The Moon does not exert an influence upon Taurus, though to be sure the sign does exert an influence like the Moon, which is moistening and moderately heating, while Cancer is feminine and summery, which is why the Moon also has some share there. This is how rulership works in my opinion. Aspects work through the relationship of these places, and the qualities that attend them.
It depends on the location of course, and there is quite a variety of Ascendants at any given time for the many locations on the Earth.
Check my guide on Ptolemy's method - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126636
Last edited:
I would like to know which other individual holds holds this biological theory.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
off topic
simply highlights a tendency to jumping to unrealistic conclusionsI'll take that as a yes.
i.e.
inference (a) = vegetarian diet
inference (b) = multiple irrelevant spin-off inferences
based on unverified assumptions
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
visible celestial objects are required in order to cast a horoscope
absence of visible celestial bodies = absence of anything to time
to exist, signs require visibility of celestial bodies
likewise
aspects require the existence of visible celestial bodies
i.e.
abscence of visible celestial bodies = no signs, no aspects and such
visible celesial objects are described by this horoscope
"our only input Time and Place aka Spacetime"
is dependent on existence of visible celestial bodies
To inform Ms Jane Jones that the "description of a moment in spacetime"
IS INDEPENDENT of visible celestial objects
is inaccurate
on the contrary
here we see that the "description of a moment in spacetime"
IS DEPENDENT ON existence of visible celestial bodies