For some people, astrology makes perfect sense. Not in any rational way: they just feel that the positions of planets and stars out there have a strong influence on their lives. Intuitions like these have no place in science and can't be used as evidence. However, they can lead us toward finding possible explanations for the validity of such beliefs. So, grab your tin-foil hats. Here's my attempt to propose a theory for the credibility of astrology as a science.
First, we must establish that there is a connection between physical forces and the personality you invent, which in turn affects your fate. Most psychologists believe that your personality is influenced by a combination of inherited genes and the environment you're brought up in. Certainly, life events in childhood can influence the way you perceive the world (hence your behavior), just as the genes you inherited from your parents can predispose you to having certain qualities. But are these life events and genes resigned to having been cast by chance alone? You may be open to the possibility that there is something in the psyche which ingrains a personality in you, causing you to draw experiences that might be ascribed to fate: things that happen which you have no control over. Nothing fateful can occur without a personality; in fact, your personality is directly related to your fate. Astrologers say this something would have to entertain metaphysical influences from celestial objects at a great distance. Other systems of belief, like religious ones, would argue that other things which determine fate, such as karma (eastern religions) and judgment (western religions), exist outside of the observable universe. For the moment, we are only concerned with what astrologers believe and not the religious.
The principle scientific explanation for astrology that believers like to suggest is that gravity on a large scale is what determines your life's horoscope. Skeptics counter this by rightfully pointing out that objects in the room where you're born have higher gravitational effects on you than planets that are far away. In fact, I have read that there are calculations which prove that the doctor holding the baby has more of a gravitational effect on it than gas giants like Jupiter! However, these skeptics have only considered Newtonian gravity, in which the force between two objects determines an outcome. What the astrologer-scientists are actually saying- rather, what I suspect they're trying to say- is that it's entanglement, or the more modern concept of quantum gravity, which is acting on the baby, and in much different ways than force alone. They're saying that it isn’t Newtonian gravity which affects your fate, but the metaphysical superpositioning of quantum wave functions at the time of birth.
Take a deep breath, that last sentence was a mouthful.
Let me try to explain how this is possible. Scientists have proven that particles in the universe are "entangled" with others at very great distances. String Theory, which has yet to be proven, goes beyond this by suggesting that each particle is entangled with every single particle it has ever encountered- all the way to the beginning of the universe. In this theory, each particle "remembers" every interaction it had with other particles, since they are all connected by dense waves of matter that resemble strings. For example, when the sun was born it contained all the matter in our solar system. Certainly, there were particles in the nova that preceded it which interacted with each other, only to be claimed by different planets after its explosion. This is how our bodies are literally connected to the sun and all the planets. If you go even farther back in time to the birth of the galaxy, connections to astrological houses can be determined the same way. Particles that exist in these houses are connected to us by those same strings.
Hopefully it's obvious to you now how astrology could be considered a science, even if it's only based on unproven theories. In case not, I'll say a little more. Another question skeptics will pose is: why does the act of physical birth mean more to astrologers than say, the moment of conception? To them it seems rather arbitrary that the time of birth would mean more than any other. The answer has to do with how physical observations collapse wave functions at the quantum level. In quantum theory, nothing technically exists until a conscious being collapses the wave functions that embody what they're observing. You might think everything has form prior to being observed (the ultrasound of a baby proves this), but until then it's just a collection of waves that have probabilities of appearance. It's the first physical observation of a baby that gives it its astrological power. The wave functions of a baby aren't observed until the doctor and mother see it for the very first time. In order for astrology to work, once the waves collapse, certain strings in the psyche are then activated, which correspond to the superposition of quantum gravity caused by the planets and the sun in relation to the far distant houses. These strings must resonate with higher frequencies when astronomical objects are aligned with certain houses in deep space.
This begs a further question: how can the houses determine fates when we know nothing of their astronomical contents? For example, how could the House of Leo be the embodiment of power if nothing in its constellation suggests it does? Well, here's the kicker: it doesn't matter what any constellation contains. Belief is what makes their contents reflect arbitrary dynamics in our psyche. Astrology requires a metaphysics to intervene on behalf of our ignorance, so that in our collective consciousness, each projection of the constellations deems them true. The observations of the constellations in this manner collapses their wave functions into each dynamic we assign them. Incidentally, this is why I believe every religion has an equal stake in the truth. Whatever you believe in makes it true, whether it's in this universe or a parallel one (hey look, another inadvertent proof that god(s) exists). But since astrological belief requires a physical structure, it must be relegated to our universe alone.
Let it be known that this idea was conceived on the Chinese New Year of 2016, the year of the monkey!
No comments:
Post a Comment