Thread: Is Astrology for Realz?

It's not a rule, it's a smart assumption.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I keep telling you that I spend my whole life learning things. One of these things that I've learned is that not everything I've experienced can be easily rationalized, that doesn't mean I didn't experience them. It means I don't know one thing for certain about the universe.

According to your knowledge, dreams are fake, according to my clues, dreams are just a version of reality where I don't have to follow any rules because its my own private universe.

Another thing I've learned is everything changes, anything can change. The law of gravity can change, I don't know. Anything can happen, and anything is possible. Stop trying to fit everything into some lock down concept like it all has to make perfect sense in the universe. We write our existence as we live it.

Laws of gravity can change? lolwut?

However, you still have knowledge, therefore by your reasoning, you are locked down already. You try to use different words to try to differentiate your position, but it still screams knowledge.

A snake couldn't slither around things as much as you do.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

It's not a rule, it's a smart assumption.

An assumption based on what? Anecdotes?

...okay, you 'assume' that everything is going to change. That doesn't make any difference.

If that's so, then the tendency of things to change will also change.

Do some research on string theory. Our whole existence is composed merely of tiny, invisible strings that can be plucked in certain ways to generate the world around us, in metaphor. The lower the vibration, the more solidified, and the more something materializes. However, they can be plucked in an infinite amount of different ways and combinations. Existence can be absolutely anything, dependent merely on the will of the particles that surround us.

And it is my belief these particles contain consciousness.

And on an infinite timeline, logically everything is impermanent in the big picture.

Furthemore, physicists admit that in studying the beginning of the universe or the big bang, they realized all theories of physics break down. Mathematical equations apparently created themselves as the universe developed.

I can keep going. Physicists still don't completely understand gravity. Gravity in itself is an incredibly weak force, abiding by a universe mathematical law of acceleration. Meanwhile, they invented Dark Matter and Black Holes to explain gravitational forces that don't fit into the equation correctly. Watch "Thunderbolts of the Gods" if you want the real explanation of these forces. It's available of Google.

Age old equations are now being solved by including parallel dimensions in the theories, which seems new but actually Eastern scholars have been saying we exist in multiplie dimensions all the time. We already exist in 3 dimensions at once, but of course now the winning theory is actually we exist in 11 dimensions at once.

Look up M theory, if you want a better explanation of multiple dimensions.

These are not fringe theories or new age theories, these are the developments of real singularity. Not just realizing that everything in the universe exists as one entity, but ancient eastern philosophers had ideas that are now making sense to cosmologists and physicists. New agism, as you call it (or we could call it what it actually is, which is studying the ideas of the greatest phislosophers of prehistory), and the most advanced thinkers in the field, are beginning to come to the same conclusions.

It's been said the mind is the universe, that in studying the mind one can understand the entire universe.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Do some research on string theory. Our whole existence is composed merely of tiny, invisible strings that can be plucked in certain ways to generate the world around us, in metaphor. The lower the vibration, the more solidified, and the more something materializes. However, they can be plucked in an infinite amount of different ways and combinations. Existence can be absolutely anything, dependent merely on the will of the particles that surround us.

And it is my belief these particles contain consciousness.

And on an infinite timeline, logically everything is impermanent in the big picture.

Furthemore, physicists admit that in studying the beginning of the universe or the big bang, they realized all theories of physics break down. Mathematical equations apparently created themselves as the universe developed.

String Hypothesis is simply mathematics. Very nice maths, yes, but still maths. It, unfortunately for you, has little going for it in terms of evidence. Hence why I used the word hypothesis as opposed to theory.

What reason do you have for thinking that a vibrating string should be conscious?

Clearly it is neural nets which are conscious, because I am a neural net, not a vibrating string.

String theory is not widely accepted at the moment.

I editted my post. You realize it exists as a theory because it's the only explanation we have for... existence in general. Or would you like to try explaining why there's something instead of nothing?

All theorists in the field that used to butt heads over these issues are coming together in realizing that infinite dimensions exist.

Perhaps it would best be broken down as me saying I believe something in theory vs in law. I believe in astrology in theory, as in I can accept it as a hypothetical postulate for the sake of continuing my research on it. We accept evolution as a theory and not a law because we can play with it as a postulate to help us understand the universe. Gravity is still named a theory by most scientists, and not a law. Scientific law was invented by the universe as it created itself. It can change its own laws.

Like I said look up M theory.

And I believe it is conscious because I am conscious.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I editted my post. You realize it exists as a theory because it's the only explanation we have for... existence in general. Or would you like to try explaining why there's something instead of nothing?

All theorists in the field that used to butt heads over these issues are coming together in realizing that infinite dimensions exist.

Perhaps it would best be broken down as me saying I believe something in theory vs in law. I believe in astrology in theory, as in I can accept it as a hypothetical postulate for the sake of continuing my research on it. We accept evolution as a theory and not a law because we can play with it as a postulate to help us understand the universe. Gravity is still named a theory by most scientists, and not a law. Scientific law was invented by the universe as it created itself. It can change its own laws.

Like I said look up M theory.

And I believe it is conscious because I am conscious.

M Theory is just an extension of String Hypothesis. Again, little evidence going for it.

Actually, we exist in 4 dimensions. X,Y,Z and Time. Also, stop confusing the terms theories with laws. In Science, Theory is the highest distinction an idea can receive. So don't get the terms mixed up.

Unless evidence presents itself in support of String hypothesis, or any variant of, then it can't be taken for truth.

Exactly, my friend, exactl,y in science theory is the highest disction and idea can receive. THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT! Science is viewing the world objectively, and objectively, there is no true or false, there is merely possibility. You are the one that then chooses to decide what is possible and what is not. You, not the evidence.

What is wrong with free association? What is wrong with imagining without proving? All great thinkers did it to learn things that are now considered standard by the average person. How can anyone learn anything about astrology if we aren't even allowed to discuss it without people saying, "I'm sorry you need to rpove that first" Prove it for what? SO you can believe it? I don't even believe it, I just believe it's a possibility.

And in my personal experience it has had value, that doesn't mean I gave up on the possibility that it's false, it only means I decided to do more experiments instead of just say it's BS and let it go. The more I research, the more value it subjectively has to me. Maybe if you researched it more, it could have more subjective value to you, as well.

Just because you have a property, it does not mean that the individual things which you are made of have that property. For example, a water molecule is not wet. In the same way, atoms are not conscious.

You are making many false generalisations... I've never heard a theory which states there are infinite dimensions. String theory predicts more than 3 spacial dimensions, but it is a small integer, not infinity.

The theory of everything remains very elusive. The things which you are talking about are highly speculative. M theory and string theory; they are not the only ones. Nor do they do anything to explain why there is something instead of nothing. There is also no assertion that the big bang created maths, only that it created physical laws.

String theory can only possibly exist with at least 10 dimensions. Like I said do the research before you try to argue this.

Water molecules are wet, as long as the particles in the water molecule continue to give off that vibration.

And you're beginning to get it, with saying there are multiple theories. The nature of existence eludes us. I don't pretend to know one damned thing about it. I'm just saying that M theory and string theory both make the idea of a conscious universe not just probable, but mathematically verifiable. If something can mathematically equate, it can exist.

Why do we have to live in a universe where everything is right or wrong. Can you at least accept the possibility we live in many dimensions at the same time, many universes at the same time? I mean, we can't even explain life yet, how did a bunch of amino acids that were not conscious suddenly decide to start working together as one single entity?

Probably coincidental molecule activity; bearing mind that there about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars it's not very surprising.

I know about string theory, thank you, but there are actually multiple variants of it, with different numbers of dimensions. Don't pretend that you understand it, because it's probably the case that only about 1,000 people in the world know what it's actually about. It's entirely mathematical, and very complex maths at that.

Individual water molecules are not wet, and saying that there is a 'wetness vibration' shows a complete misunderstanding of basic particle theory.

And M theory and string theory say NOTHING about consciousness. There is no scientific agreement about virtually anything regarding consciousness, let alone is specific nature.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Exactly, my friend, exactl,y in science theory is the highest disction and idea can receive. THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT! Science is viewing the world objectively, and objectively, there is no true or false, there is merely possibility. You are the one that then chooses to decide what is possible and what is not. You, not the evidence.

What is wrong with free association? What is wrong with imagining without proving? All great thinkers did it to learn things that are now considered standard by the average person. How can anyone learn anything about astrology if we aren't even allowed to discuss it without people saying, "I'm sorry you need to rpove that first" Prove it for what? SO you can believe it? I don't even believe it, I just believe it's a possibility.

And in my personal experience it has had value, that doesn't mean I gave up on the possibility that it's false, it only means I decided to do more experiments instead of just say it's BS and let it go. The more I research, the more value it subjectively has to me. Maybe if you researched it more, it could have more subjective value to you, as well.

Then go prove it! Do the research and advance our scientific understanding! Einstein didn't become as famous as he did just because he did some thinking. He not only proposed some hypothesises, but he showed them to be true, and thus we have his legacy in the form of Special and General Relativity.

Possibilities are meaningless unless you can show these possibilities to not be false. For String hypothesis, you need to be able to show that 10 dimensions exist, or observe a phenomenon which can only occur in space-time that has 10 dimensions and is predicted by String Hypothesis.

Unless the evidence is there to support it, then String hypothesis is just another unsubstantiated mathematical idea.

But you can't prove synchronistic phenomena on a general basis. Synchronicity is a personal experience.

EDIT: Look at what happened when einstein tried to prove time on a general level, he realized time does not exist generally. Synchronicity is related to the timing of events and coincidences, but we experience time on our own level, through our own cycles and developments.

I'm not going to argue what is and isn't wet, or if it's possible for life to just randomly come into existence. I mean, there's no point because I don't have enough information. I can't feel a particle to tell you if its wet or not, but I can say that it appears that water particles are emanating wetness. I also can't tell you if I think its possible for amino acids to just randomly become a conscious entity out of nothing. I don't see how its possible for consciousness to just arrive out of nothing. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just looking at the odds, and sure since existence is probably infinite (because my brain can't logically compute a finite existence) then yeah, maybe once at of every 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 times that lighting strikes water, it becomes conscious.

It is more likely to me that consciousness is a fundamental part of existence, just like energy and matter.

You should probably drop that tone, apparently you don't even get particle theory. You really should do some research because it is quite embarassing to have such a weak grasp on reality. A water molecule is no more wet than an oxygen molecule. You don't need to feel it... they're both just nuclei and electron clouds...

And who said an amino acid is conscious? Virtually nobody thinks that basic life forms are conscious, and certainly not molecules. Only after a billion years or so of evolution do you start getting animals with complex processing organs (brains) which are what cause consciousness.

Wow I love how you project your own misunderstanding on me. You're make VAST speculations without backing up any of your claims. It's completely falacial, until you're willing to explain some of your opinions instead of just claiming "This is what everybody thinks and that's why its true" there's no point in arguing with you.

Anyway, here are some scientific studies on astrology:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astro...ic-studies.php

http://www.phact.org/e/astrolgy.htm

And here are here's a study "refuting" astrology, anyone who's researched astrology would know that the controlled experiment was missing various integral aspects.

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

I thought you said all of that stuff was nonsense and that objective evidence for astrology was impossible? No actually, I don't think you said it, you DID say it, so what the hell are you doing now?

Anyway, I never justified a belief by mass agreement. Where did I say that? Tell me what my vast speculations are, because as far as I can tell I have been completely rational.

I did say it, or did you not bother to click the links?

I understand the burden of proof lays on the claimant, but the thing is, I'm not looking to prove astrology in an objective sense. I don't think it's true objectively, it's only true subjectively, as it it only has value on a personal level. It is as real as what you get from it.

The first one has studies that are obviously probably just coincidences that occasionally come up in doing studies, the second is something that pretty much says all small studies are not really verifiable. In fact, I highly recommend you read the second link, it'll help you a lot if you want to keep this argument going because it has a lot of reasons why astrology is probably not real.

And here is where you claim something is true because of mass agreement:

Virtually nobody thinks that basic life forms are conscious

Not only is that statment true in the OPPOSITE but it's also a fallacy.

Not only that, but I present something a different way and you claim it contradicts particle theory, but you don't say how, you just claim. Well, the burden of proof lays on the claimant, so how is a water molecule not wet? Because you read in a book that molecules have no characteristics? They do, it's just their characters are created by they way the electrons, protons and neutrons work together in each individual atom. In that sense, within every SINGLE particle contains the potential to have ANY characteristic, and based on their environments they portray different characteristics. That doesn't mean the molecule doesn't emanate wetness on an individual level, we just don't notice these characteristics individually because it's too small.

Anyway, I'm doing a terrible job at arguing my point, Elisabet Sahtouris does MUCH better so you should watch this video if you want to further your own understanding of the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqpe30hozmE

If you're put off by the host, you can read more here: http://sahtouris.com/info

Okay, so I was making a fallacy, but you asserting that the opposite is true doesn't count as a fallacy? Ask random people if they think that an amobea has a mind. They won't. So what I said was true, not a fallacy.

You seem to have forgotten why particle theory came up; it was only as an example that a collective does not have the properties of the individuals, not a direct contradiction of your idea. You are completely incorrect about what you say. One vital thing about water is the ability of molecules to make H bonds to other molecules due to the extreme differences in electronegativity of O and H, but a single water molecule does not have the ability to make H bonds to itself. But let's not get hung up on that, as it was only an example. I'll give you another simpler one so that hopefully you can understand it with your limited scientific understanding: a human, being a collection of cells, does not have the same properties as a skin cell, or blood cell, or neuron.

I was not trying to conclude anything by saying the opposite is true, I was just saying that most people do believe we live in a conscious universe. If you look at statistics, most people believe in God, and while they take consciousness out of matter in western society, in most other societies matter is just a very solidified form of consciousness.

I know why we originally brought up water molecules, but I don;t think the anaolgy works, it's better to say, as you corrected, skin and blood cells do not have the characters of the gestalt, the human being.

But that's just saying the whole is worth more than the sum of the parts. Individual cells perform individual tasks, but if you look at the actual make-up, the same strategy repeats itself on a much larger scale. Cells have nuclei, we have brains, cells have membranes, we have skin. We're like a cohesive colony that has banded together and in doing so has merged consciousness.

I think you're getting stuck in my opinion by combining consciousness and a mind. I am not saying rocks have minds, I'm saying they have consciousness. It's very, very different. At the basic level, we know so little about how the universe works and it makes less and less sense every single day.

Not 2 years ago the BIG theories on space were dark matter and black holes, now new theories have comes out that make much more sense to explain all those phenomena but they cannot be proven, they can only make logical sense just as dark matter and black holes were meant to do before them.

By the way the theory I'm referring to the electric model.

Anyway people do experiments to see if they can verify things in a controlled level where their own subjective ideas don't get in the way because then it becomes something valid to the collective perspective but it's all perspective, without perspective life does not exist.

Back to cosmology, there are experiments to prove the electric model is possible in a laboratory, but that doesn't mean our sun is connected to the center of our universe by a giant, invisible electric cord like some sort of super conductor. We don't have the technology to prove if that's what's happening in reality, we only have the technology to prove its possible. And that's where I go back to what I said in the above post, something is as real as what you can get out of it. If you can gain understanding from something, then it has value, value is weight, weight is density, density is solidification. What is more real than something that is solid?

In order for people to come up with experiements to do in order to check the value of certain ideas (notice I don't say prove) they first need to humor these ideas with free association, imagination without verification. From there, they can go back and say, "Okay well in order to see if this is even worth a damn we need to set up an experiment like this."

It's like here I present a hypothesis, such like "astrological natal charts can present accurate psychological evaluations of people" and nobody bothers to humor it. I mean, electricity didn't exist at first either as more than a natural phenomena until Benjamin Franklin put it in a bottle, and it certainly didn't exist as something wieldable by man until Nikola Tesla came along. Everything FIRST had to exist as a simple idea though, with no more validity than the purple unicorn that jumps around in your dreams.

And people destroyed Nikola Tesla because he presented the most bizarre ideas the world had ever heard in terms of reality. He saw his imagination just as cearly as you and I see the physical world, so of course his ideas seemed more real to him. They weren't just hypotheses to him, he could realize and create something with his mind. Everything else was just wire gluing and paperwork.