Martin Lewicki wrote:
Astrology ... can't explain the framework in the detailed and experimetal way that physics has done so in its own field.
On one level, Martin, the key phrase here is "in its own field". Astrology, in its own field, has no need for the kind of explanations that science requires; it only becomes an issue when scientists claim that it
can't work. But in that case the onus is on the scientists to present a detailed explanation of why they claim it - all I've seen is "of course, we can never prove a negative" which seems a bit lame to me.
As I understand it (or misunderstand it perhaps):
Every particle exerts an influence on the space around it; the strength of that influence reduces with distance, but never falls to zero. This means that every point in space is subject to a force which is the sum of the influences of all the particles in the universe. Any intellectual model of the universe has to recognise this and show how it manifests; Mach's principle in effect says that those influences manifest as inertia - a tendency of every body to continue to move in the same path, unless acted upon by another body. That all those influences can combine to produce such a simple effect is rather wonderful - and is the primary evidence, to my mind, of pattern in the universe.
Looked at from that perspective, the motion of every particle is a result of the distribution of all the matter in the universe. Therefore when two particles are brought into contact with each other, so that they act upon each other, that interaction is also a result of the distribution of all the matter in the universe - as must be the myriad interactions between the zillions of particles that make up all the higher level structures (molecules, cells, organs, bodies and all the objects that surround us). That all those interactions can combine to produce higher level bodies which can be seen to behave predictably is also rather wonderful - and is further evidence, to my mind, of pattern in the universe.
On a physical level every internal process that any higher level structure goes through is a result of the interactions of the particles of which it is constituted - this applies to the activity of the brain, of the heart, of the nervous system and all the other processes that make up the human experience. And the motions of all these particles result from their positions relative to all the other matter in the universe (you can do the maths for that if you like, Martin, but I certainly wouldn't try, even if I could). Even if you postulate some innate property in each particle that is not related to the other matter in the universe, it will still be operating within that universal influence.
This is all totally elementary - so where's the difficulty? That there is a relationship, between human activity and experience on the one hand and the movements of the planets on the other, stems quite naturally from the fact that all the motions of the particles that they are made up of derive from the overall structure of the universe. The only issue, as I said before, is whether or not there can be any
discernable congruence between them; if a scientist claims that there can't be, I expect to see some detailed reasoning to back it up - that, as you say, is what scientists are expected to do.
Most of the arguments I've seen against astrology seem to assume an interaction between an astrologer and a client. I can't see that any argument of this type has any relevance for the essential validity of the subject; it certainly has none for me because my study of it hasn't involved other people. I've not tried to delineate character from a chart, and I've never talked to anyone about what their chart shows about them, nor tried to analyse my own beyond what jumps out. My study has involved watching my transits, over a period of twelve years, and relating them to the patterns of my inner experience and of my interactions with the world. And during that time I have always kept in mind that all the correlations I was seeing could be illusion. When scientists claim that astrology is nonsense, they are claiming that I am deluding myself; well, when I see them exercising the kind of caution in their own field that I exercise in astrology I might take them seriously... until then I'm afraid I'm going to regard that kind of statement with contempt.
This is going a bit off topic, but I did raise it in an earlier post as a key factor in sciencists' view of astrology. You say that
... we have observations, experimets, mathematical theories that critically link together in clear ways that we use to make predictions and make further discoveries.
Well, that's the idea certainly. But when I look at what underlies the Big Bang theory what I see is a wilful abandonment of intellectual rigour. Between consenting adults in the privacy of their own (privately-funded) ivory tower it's harmless enough. But when scientists present it as a crowning achievement of scientific reasoning, then I think it is seriously harmful; and when they are funded by money taken from people with a threat of force .... but taxation is definitely off-topic, so I won't go there.
Now I must read Garry's paper, which I downloaded a few days ago and haven't yet got down to.
