Quantum Astrology: The future of Astrology, and reconciling it with Astronomy

[Gabriel Syme]

I used to make a lot of threads. Not so much now. And I don't think I'd ever be around anymore, so this is, in a sense, my last thread, of sorts...

~

This topic was concieved when I was reading a book about astronomy (NOT astrology), and when I happened to talk about the idea of future space travel and habitation with my father. They may not seem related to astrology, but in truth, they are.

Astrology has often been dismissed by scientists, and it's main reasons for it's particular proliferation in this day and age is as a result of the New Age movement. Sure, horoscopes started thanks to P.T. Barnum, and his wonderful effect, but it was the New Age that provided an impetus for the spread of this subject in contemporary life. The New Age, being fueled by Post-modernism, bases most of it's beliefs and new practises and the idea that what we once considered as nonsense and superstitious may have actual bearing, a complete exaggeration of subjectivity (which the philosophical movement of Post-modernism is famous for). As such, the New AGe is famous for numerous practises, be it the revival of pagan practises (Wiccanism), or, quite fantastically, nonsensical ideas like Zen Macrobiotics (which simply requires you to eat nothing but Brown Rice. No, really). The New Age, as it is still now, continues to exist with it's continuously new ideas of a new holistic way of living that suspends all belief, and thus, entraps the gllible to believe. It is not a wonder, then, that many people are also taken into astrology.

And astrology itself, has to many flaws to consider. The most basic astronomical arguement against astronomy is a famous one; astrology never ever really follows astronomy. The movement of the planets, and their constellations, do not coincide between both subjects. Sure, the Chinese and Indians got around this by focusing on the movement of the Sun itself, but the Western version retains its classical, and thus, false standings. As such, Mars will always be amongst the constellation of Taurus, and will not move to the other constellations.

However, the differences between astronomy and astrology got me thinking, and I have somewhat convinced myself on one fact: astrology will never EVER leave Humanity. As long as Humanity continues to look at the stars, and as long as the stars themselves exist, then both astronomy and astrology will always exist. To give a very simple example: let's say Mankind begins to terraform Mars, and with some luck (since it 's almost DAMN impossible) Venus. The superstitions that Man once hand will continue, as it has always done since the beginning of time. Thus, even if I were to live on Mars, I would not be too surprised to find astrologers studying the stars, and basing the behaviours of particualr Martians on these movements.

Of course, I'm talking about different planets, but the basis of Astrology will always remain the same. To put it more bluntly, if you're born on a different planet, the astrology for you will be different. Let's say, if Man is succesfull enough to reach Alpha Centauri within the next century (it's a few light years away, so, if we can go half of that speeed, it'll only take, the most, a decade to get there), and, upon reahcing there, decided to build an artificial planet construct (yes, that's science fiction right now, but so was the air-conditioner in 1700). It may be artificial, it may be far away, and the locations of the constellations are different, but, astrology would still exist. Astrologers would simply have to rebase their findings, and evolve new systems and diagrams to explain that people, born on different planets, would thus, be different.

Now, I'm just talking about the potential existence of astrology as a result of continued space travel. A more compelling question is: would astology have, in any way, any actual grounds for belief ? Well, I must fist state that I do not believe in astrology in being able to predict the future. If I wanted my future. I'd rather get Richard Dawkins and the Human Genome Project (even if I'm not a Dawkinite), since, according to him, our genese are everything. However, we have, since the beginning, been at the mercy of gravittational pulls affecting this planet, and the movement of our planet in contrast to other heavenly bodies. Till this day, people still believe, and perhaps there is some possibility, that the gravitational pulls of the moon may have something to do with mesntrual cycles. This may not always be true, but some reasonably minded people believe in this supposedly outdated idea. ANd the moon is responsible for one thing; the movement of the tides themselves. And the heavenly bodies, even those not mentioned in astrology themselves, are unique as well. We have discovered Sedna, the planet that circles the Sun a lot less than we do, something like an interplanetary long lost cousin, whose movement is an odd mix of a comet and a planet. And the Sun has a twin, known as Nemesis, which conincides with it once in a while, thus resulting in various phenomena (the extinction of the dinosaurs, or perhaps the greater extinction before it, was said to be a result of this). Whatever it is, the movement of comsic enteties DOES affect every being on this planet in a way that can be predicted.

But what about the juicier stuff; can astrology ever predict our own lives ? I still say no, but,a s to a person's behaviour and a few of it's traits, I would like to investigate it a bit. I still am interested in the idea that gravitational pulls can affect a person's lfie. In gravitaty, as it is, can affect the movement of the plaents, influnce tides and menstrual cycles, then who knows what it can do the brain, and even to our psyches ?? It seems far fethced, but, unlike most new age studies that don't give much research or study into their many beliefs and practises, I'm willing to put some into it.

I believe, that, some day, astronomy and astrology can reconcile each other. AFter, both have similar suffixes, and both detail the study of the stars. And while, I do not believe in the prediction of the future, I believe that cosmic phenomena can have some influence on our brain apttersn and our ways of thinking. It is just my own opinion, but, whether or not it is true, I can't deny that astrology will be absent from the future, even if we were to live on other planetry bodies.

~

Besides, it'd be so cool if quantam physics got involved with astrology. Think about it; the eventual effect of black holes on our lives, before they eat us up. That'd be something.

[Linzoy]

It's cool to see someone taking astrology seriously, but I don't think it's possible for astrology to work scientificly, science relies on solid patterns. Astrology helps people find out about themselves, and people's personalitys don't follow any definite pattern. I think astrology has to be vauge so it will always be considered unreliable.

[Gabriel Syme]

It's cool to see someone taking astrology seriously, but I don't think it's possible for astrology to work scientificly, science relies on solid patterns. Astrology helps people find out about themselves, and people's personalitys don't follow any definite pattern. I think astrology has to be vauge so it will always be considered unreliable.

Not really. The psychologist, and disciple of Freud, Karl Jung, attempted to take that latter approach,a nd use scientific guidelines to solve the problem of dreams (Freud was just crazy about sex). Jung used astrology to some degree, and it helped him in his findings. Of course, that's just one example, but... who knows ? And Jung was not a postmodernist (even if the New Age abuses his ideas). That's something, you know.

[KLEIN]

I shouldn't have to post something like this again. You should be smart enough to know that astrology is bullshit, BT. (http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html)

I can't believe you wrote multiple pages trying to rationalize astrology.

If you're going to reconcile it with astronomy, you need to approach it from a physics perspective.

[MST3Kakalina]

if i hadn't just gotten 5 and a half hours of sleep, i would type a more detailed response to this.

you love to link there whenever anyone mentions astrology, Klein. just lay off, geeze.

[exemplary citizen]

Not really. The psychologist, and disciple of Freud, Karl Jung, attempted to take that latter approach,a nd use scientific guidelines to solve the problem of dreams (Freud was just crazy about sex). Jung used astrology to some degree, and it helped him in his findings. Of course, that's just one example, but... who knows ? And Jung was not a postmodernist (even if the New Age abuses his ideas). That's something, you know.
Yeah, but... Jung was off his rocker. We can pretty much glean through study now that there is no such thing as universal dream symbolism, because the waking experiences of someone living out in the bush are so radically different than somebody living in the inner city. And with current dream theory pointing in the direction of the brain only being able to process things we have waking experience with during dreamtime (albeit exaggerated), Jung just doesn't make any sense. A tree is no more a symbol for a father figure than a cigar is a penis. It's still that wacky Freudian stuff that doesn't work in reality.

[Gabriel Syme]

I shouldn't have to post something like this again. You should be smart enough to know that astrology is bullshit, BT. (http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html)

I can't believe you wrote multiple pages trying to rationalize astrology.

If you're going to reconcile it with astronomy, you need to approach it from a physics perspective.

*Ahem*...


you love to link there whenever anyone mentions astrology, Klein. just lay off, geeze.

Klein, of course astrology is bullshit. So much so, that why should we prove it to be so ? Have you EVER considered joining the enemy camp of a debate, and defending it, so that it's smuch more fune to debunk it when you switch sides again ? That's what debaters and philosophers do.

And, of course; it's no point dismissing everything that is questionable as being immediately bullshit. I'm not alking about eating brown rice everyday. I'm talking about the movement of the stars; they're quite different.

By the way: I'd like to see more links. One link isn't quite enough. ANd I DO know my physics, thankyew.

Yeah, but... Jung was off his rocker. We can pretty much glean through study now that there is no such thing as universal dream symbolism, because the waking experiences of someone living out in the bush are so radically different than somebody living in the inner city. And with current dream theory pointing in the direction of the brain only being able to process things we have waking experience with during dreamtime (albeit exaggerated), Jung just doesn't make any sense. A tree is no more a symbol for a father figure than a cigar is a penis. It's still that wacky Freudian stuff that doesn't work in reality.

But I'd say that Freud's stuff works a lot less than Jung. ANd please bear in mind that Jung's stuff was for both city and rural people (he treated both). Universal dream symbolism may exist, maybe not entirely universal, but collective nonetheless. Unless the person ahs lived in a society different from others, as long as we retain perceptions similar in some ways, then the symbols in our dreams will remain the same (and can only change depending on our perceptions)

And a tree, by the way, is a mother figure. No, really. And it's a tree that is supposed to represent intercourse between earth and sky (which can be seen poetically)

[KLEIN]

the locations of the constellations are different, but, astrology would still exist. Astrologers would simply have to rebase their findings, and evolve new systems and diagrams to explain that people, born on different planets, would thus, be different.

Till this day, people still believe, and perhaps there is some possibility, that the gravitational pulls of the moon may have something to do with mesntrual cycles. This may not always be true, but some reasonably minded people believe in this supposedly outdated idea. ANd the moon is responsible for one thing; the movement of the tides themselves. And the heavenly bodies, even those not mentioned in astrology themselves, are unique as well. We have discovered Sedna, the planet that circles the Sun a lot less than we do, something like an interplanetary long lost cousin, whose movement is an odd mix of a comet and a planet. And the Sun has a twin, known as Nemesis, which conincides with it once in a while, thus resulting in various phenomena (the extinction of the dinosaurs, or perhaps the greater extinction before it, was said to be a result of this). Whatever it is, the movement of comsic enteties DOES affect every being on this planet in a way that can be predicted.

I still am interested in the idea that gravitational pulls can affect a person's lfie. In gravitaty, as it is, can affect the movement of the plaents, influnce tides and menstrual cycles, then who knows what it can do the brain, and even to our psyches ??

I believe, that, some day, astronomy and astrology can reconcile each other. AFter, both have similar suffixes, and both detail the study of the stars.

I tire of wading through this bullshit. Gravity is GMm/r^3 or somesuch.

It is an inverse cubed relationship. Hence, any gravitational forces effecting us must be very close to us.

As for the second quoted paragraph, I challenge you to find a single reputable source defending those "scientific" arguments you put forth.

You're just avoiding the issue of astrology by burying it with a combination of "New age bullshit" and faulty science.

[MST3Kakalina]

can you just see this thread as a theoretical discussion, acknowledging that there's little to no scientific basis for astrology and then moving past it?

<s>of course i am not saying this because i have an amateur interest in astrology myself.</s>

[Invader Flak]

My tarot reading was awesome!

*Dies Suddenly*

[exemplary citizen]

And a tree, by the way, is a mother figure. No, really. And it's a tree that is supposed to represent intercourse between earth and sky (which can be seen poetically)
... that's not what every single Jungian therapist I've ever talked to has said. Maybe they were just all into gay sex, but... maybe it's just generic "parental figure"?

[Gabriel Syme]

Gravity is GMm/r^3 or somesuch.

It is an inverse cubed relationship. Hence, any gravitational forces effecting us must be very close to us.

You're just avoiding the issue of astrology by burying it with a combination of "New age bullshit" and faulty science.

Hmmm......

can you just see this thread as a theoretical discussion, acknowledging that there's little to no scientific basis for astrology and then moving past it?

<s>of course i am not saying this because i have an amateur interest in astrology myself.</s>

Show me at least once where I used New age bullshit and faulty science. Quantum science is, unto itself, soemthing that has never, EVER been fully understood (if anyone did, they would quake to their kness, tremble and question all existence). It is not a wonder that Einstein didn't like it, and dismissed it with his relativity, but he too was long disredited.

There's no point in trying to find any scientific basis for astrolgoy, because it's just too big. And gravity is more then just an equation. You just agve one equation of..... what ? The gravitational calculation of one planet ? of ALL planets ? What about the movement and circulation of every planet and star in the galaxy ?

~

Perhaps it can be seen as bullshit, but, prior to the 1700s, the possibility of a seventh planet in our solar system was seen as 'bullshit' and nonsense. The moment Uranus was discovered, it shocked every scintific study. I'm using this example, because of the fact that a planet, which had a lot to do with the movements of our solar system (so much so that it is lopsided) actually existed, when people once thought it didn't, was just icnredible.

As to something that we can expect to happen; can we blame every unexpected mood change, any expected happening, anything as such, as being completely random ? True, sonmethings ARE random, but, if the flutter of a single butterfly can cause an avalanche elsewhere, then who knows what planetary movements can do. After all, we still cannot prove if menstrual cycles and what-not are being caused by lunar cycles

And of course I don't have any evidence for it... because it's something I came up with. I don't expect any decent astrologer AND decent astronomer to reconcile their differences and start partaking in a mission tor econcile their differences. They would never EVER do that, as long as both sides continue to challenge each other in their various ways.

Lastly, you can be tired, but you can't just end an arguement. It'll keep on going. Perhaps you are right Klein. But I'd rather prove it first. Astronomers and astrologers never get round to doing it together, so it's about time they did.

My tarot reading was awesome!

*Dies Suddenly*

Tarot readings have nothing to do with the movement of the stars... or do they ?

*ponders*

No they don't.

It's not as if they're tied the Schumann resonance...

... that's not what every single Jungian therapist I've ever talked to has said. Maybe they were just all into gay sex, but... maybe it's just generic "parental figure"?

Aha ! Noet every single one ! The problem of dreams,a s usual, is that they're open too to much interpretation, especially amongst some postmodernist Jungians. I'd rather stick to the latter, especially if you're right-minded (unless you do fancy hairy legs).

~

This topic is a bit controversial... so I'll think I'll start a new, better one. Besides; army doesn't start until July....

[Mecha Wolf]

Note one of the most basic rules: Correlation != causation.

No offence, talk astrology all you want, just don't mix it with science. It's not "controversial," it's just dumb. Keep faith and science apart and everyone's happy, apart from the "intelligent design" crew, but they're never happy anyway.

[Forever Finite]

are you guys going to be total pricks about individual interest in mixing science and metaphysics in your little "discussion forum"?

[Mecha Wolf]

True, I was a bit harsh. I don't _think_ it's a good idea, because I've seen that kind of argument before on astrology, and it was on the <i>Discovery Channel</i> years ago. It shouldn't be given the time of day in a scientific medium, but yes, on a message board it's just a matter of opinion.

[Forever Finite]

i really don't know WHAT anymore. science is constantly disproving itself and re-establishing previously established ultimate truths like some kind of confused puppy chasing its own tail.

so, i never assume mixing two ideas is stupid. i am not even certain that i am not hallucinating a computer in front of me.

[Mecha Wolf]

Yes, true, and I do believe that some basic concepts of astrology are true, that heavenly bodies can affect us in some ways. Astrology as a whole is entirely based on vague correlation, though.
The moon is good point to make, as BT did, because it affects us in ways that are actual scientific theory. Animals are affected by it's visage during the night, and the tides are affected by it, as was mentioned. Those are things we know, so it might also be affecting us in other ways through its gravitational pull. <i>How</i> it could potentially affect us is pure speculation, though, but yeah, I guess that's redundant. :P

[KLEIN]

<b>Till this day, people still believe, and perhaps there is some possibility, that the gravitational pulls of the moon may have something to do with mesntrual cycles.</b> This may not always be true, but some reasonably minded people believe in this supposedly outdated idea. ANd the moon is responsible for one thing; the movement of the tides themselves. And the heavenly bodies, even those not mentioned in astrology themselves, are unique as well. We have discovered Sedna, the planet that circles the Sun a lot less than we do, something like an interplanetary long lost cousin, whose movement is an odd mix of a comet and a planet. And the Sun has a twin, known as Nemesis, which conincides with it once in a while, thus resulting in various phenomena (the extinction of the dinosaurs, or perhaps the greater extinction before it, was said to be a result of this). <b>Whatever it is, the movement of comsic enteties DOES affect every being on this planet in a way that can be predicted.</b>

Using a whole lot of miscellaneous bullshit to support your case.

Back up your arguments with related facts.


Finite, science very very rarely does that. Nonscientists often like to make it seem like it does, but that is rarely true.

[Forever Finite]

regardless, we know a lot less than we seem to think we do. there's nothing wrong with speculation.

so, maybe you can try to consider that before you brutally tear someone down? words like "bullshit" are generally reserved for argument, not discussion.

[tater]

Klein, that's a bunch of crap. Science is full of unproven theories and just as unpredictable as a religion. Galileo was put in prision for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. What about Schrodinger's wave equation? And the very recent theory that light is both a wave and a particle. They learn new things everyday and sometimes they agree with what we know and sometimes they don't. The fields of quantum physics and quantum mechanics are amazingly based in a lot of "well it might" kind of reasoning. Hell, we're still modifying the model of the atom. What's to say that in 50 years all of our science won't be looked upon as foolish?

As to astrology, I find it useless in any fortunetelling capacity. I DO find it to be amazingly accurate at prediciting personality. Having an astrological chart done (birth time and place being important) was a fascinating study. I'm not really sure how it all works, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and think that maybe there is something out there we don't know about yet.

[Shadowfox]

Klein, that's a bunch of crap. Science is full of unproven theories and just as unpredictable as a religion. Galileo was put in prision for saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. What about Schrodinger's wave equation? And the very recent theory that light is both a wave and a particle. They learn new things everyday and sometimes they agree with what we know and sometimes they don't. The fields of quantum physics and quantum mechanics are amazingly based in a lot of "well it might" kind of reasoning. Hell, we're still modifying the model of the atom. What's to say that in 50 years all of our science won't be looked upon as foolish?

As to astrology, I find it useless in any fortunetelling capacity. I DO find it to be amazingly accurate at prediciting personality. Having an astrological chart done (birth time and place being important) was a fascinating study. I'm not really sure how it all works, but I'm willing to keep an open mind and think that maybe there is something out there we don't know about yet.

Schrodinger's wave equation was introduced in 1926, tater. And De Broglie's wave equation, which operates under the assumption of wave/particle duality was 1924. It's not <i>that</i> recent. And though it's a revision, it's not a contradiction of any old theory.

It's like using an equation with a constant that's just never been important so no one's paid attention to it, then coming to realize that the constant is actually a function of mass and the reason it's never been important as anything other than a constant is that all the experiments using that equation were performed with objects of similar mass. So you do some tests and find out what the function that you thought was a constant is and rewrite the equation. But it still doesn't affect things of similar mass as anything other than the constant it was assumed to be in the first place. Even though the equation and possibly even the underlying theory has been rewritten, the results of your old experiment are the same.

De Broglie says that a thrown baseball is also a wave, but its wavelength is on the order of 10^(-34) meters. If you wanted to, say, diffract the baseball through a slit, you'd have to find a slit about that size. I'm poking around the internet now and most sources are putting the radius of a hydrogen atom at about 10^(-8) centimeters. The wavelength of a baseball is too small for it to interact with things as a wave. The old theories of Newtonian mechanics accurately describe the baseball's actions even though we now believe that it is also a wave. Heisenberg tells us that we can't know both the position and the momentum of a particle. But the uncertainty of the position of say, a car, if we know its momentum exactly is way, <i>way</i> too small to actually matter in any reasonable calculations. For something tiny, like an electron, it's considerable, a tenth of a millimeter or so *doesn't actually remember this one*, but the bigger your particle gets, the smaller your uncertainty gets and the less it matters anyway.

People like to use quantum physics as an example of physics being entirely revamped. But it's not an "oh crap, we were totally off, we've got to rewrite every theory ever". They had the shape right, what was off was the tiny detail-work. The stuff that didn't even come into play until recent centuries because it was too small to measure. And Heisenberg says the tiny detail-work is always going to have a significant amount of uncertainty to it. Says so with certainty. Electrons behave unpredictably. The fewer electrons there are, the more they have to be described with probability equations rather than certainty. But the fact that we know that doesn't make the underlying <i>science</i> unpredictable. I've got a textbook on my bed that can give me some very definite methodology for predicting things. And it can tell me exactly the likelihood that my predictions will be accurate (barring stupid mistakes).

There's very little "might" to accepted theories, every one I can think of (which I'm certain is not every one, if you've got one that contradicts this, let me know) was subsequently (or previously) proven by somebody experimenting with tiny things. Unproven theory=hypothesis.

Galileo being put in prison was an example of people (specifically the church) not liking change. Has little to do with uncertainty <i>or</i> physics. More to do with close-minded certainty and perception of heresy.

*cough*

Erm... I lost my point. "Science is uncertain" is a very weird statement, I think I don't get what you mean by it. I'm gonna just contribute a "quantum physics fills me with glee" and go back to my not-being-here now.

[KLEIN]

"Science is full of unproven theories and just as unpredictable as a religion."

People emphasize the word "Theory" and use it as an excuse to discount science.

ALL scientific facts are Theories. But they don't get to be theories until they're on par with the theory of electromagnetism and the theory of gravity.

But to say it's as unpredictable as RELIGION... That is unmitigated ignorance of an intolerable degree.

[Gabriel Syme]

Not everyone believes in religion, Klein. Some consider it to be a sign of stupidity, filled with unpredictability. Some atheistic scientists are atheistic to the degree that they'd solely believe that anyone religious are idiots; these are the zealots of atheism, and they do exist.

But yes; both science and religion are unpredicatble. Tell me how science can concieve somethign as unimaginabloe as Uranus ? It was uneard of ebfore 1700. And CHinese Buddhism never needed a Journey to the West; they merely mythified it. They are evry unpredicatble to support their claims.

Klein, I'm afraid that I have to agree that your usage of the word 'bullshit' is too inappropriate. I udnerstand your ideals that astrology may be bullshit, but you're getting too passionate ehre. We're not having an arguement, are we.

And how certain are you that the theory of electromagnetism and the theory of gravity ? (Mind you, there's another scientific term. It's called Law. So we have the Law of Gravity, not the theory of it) But we're not discussing laws here. And I'm not interested in backing this speculation with facts yet, as research on it hasn't even been started yet (and I don't want to go into an arguement about that)

(Side note: I think a better end-off topic is in much need for)

[Mecha Wolf]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/nstars17.xml

Scientific theory is always based in things that we can observe. A theory is made that fits the facts, you can't just make something up and claim that it's science.

Sorry, you fail it.

[KLEIN]

We've established that it was bad to use the word "bullshit".

But science, by definition, is predictable. I especially don't see how you can call science unpredictable by using the example of Uranus (the planet). Someone saw it. Through a telescope. It wasn't some random capricious creation of some scientist.

[Gabriel Syme]

But, prior to people actually seeing it; people REALLY thought that such a notion would be a random capricious creation of some scientist. It was quite established that, prior to 1700, there were only seven planets. Uranus was VERY unexpected.

http://www.ccaurora.edu/astro/ast101/notes/notes11.htm

After all, not only did it have a movement unique to itself, it's orbit was manipulated by ANOTHER unknown planet which, true enough, they discoered later.

Uranus was SO unexpected, that they were going to name it George. AFter all, Saturn was seen by ancient times, but not Uranus. And, think about; Neptune coming AFTER Uranus ? Sure, Neptune is bluer than Uranus, but, yes.

I used Uranus, because, if they DIDN'T have the telescope, they wouldn't be able to predict it. And remember that galileo had the telescope for centuries, but it wouldn't be until another 100+ years before someone discovered Uranus. The Ancients gave the planets the classical names we use today, as they could see it in ancient times, even without the telescope. uranus, however, was so unexpected, clearly seen only through the telescope, that they felt like giving it another name, but resorted only to the classic 'Uranus' just to hounr tradition.

Science is not very predictable. If Uranus is not a clear example enough:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jea4/earth/ATOMICTHEORY.HTML

Another clear example. It's quite long, but Rutheford found something even a lot more unpredictable.

Science shall remain unpredictable as long as we do not know some things, and we are aren't certain of them. Unless we are certain of those things, then we can predict them.

Klein, I may be an Arts student, but, prior to that, I was a Science student, and I am still interested in Science as it is. Science is never ever completely predictable. There are theories we've not yet proven (superstrings or quarks) and concepts that are beyond us for now.

i really don't know WHAT anymore. science is constantly disproving itself and re-establishing previously established ultimate truths like some kind of confused puppy chasing its own tail.


This seems unrelated, but I feel tempted to just say one thing, something that I've learnt from philosophy.

The one thing that one can never ever doubt, is that we all think. It's more thne a fact, it's a law. Even if you don't think you think, you still think. Instinct is still a form of thought, even if basic. We always think, and thus, we always are, and therefore, we know of our own existence through the recognition of our existence in thought.

(Well, that's just Descartes, but modern Philosophy would be nothing without him)

[KLEIN]

I still don't know why you're blaming science of the fact that they couldn't see Uranus. What you're arguing is that the UNIVERSE is unpredictable, something I completely agree with. But Science <i>is</i> predictable. It takes the known facts about the universe and derives mathematical expressions to be able to predict things.

If you dropped a ball from the top of a building, science could calculate the exact time it would take to fall (within a reasonable percent error). Any error is caused by the world, not by science.

[tater]

i think the idea that is being missed here is that we will NEVER have all the information. something could be discovered tomorrow that proves BT's ideas are right. it's improbable, but possible. and the examples were brought forth because it is being subtly stated that some of the most mundane of science "fact" today was considered impossible in its time. if you're such a scientist, you should study a bit of history as well to learn that literally anything is possible.

[exemplary citizen]

Yeeeah, but... Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true. That's really one of the basises for the scientific method -- we don't just willy-nilly assume every little idea is as worthy of hypothesis as something that actually has some pretty solid things pointing towards its correctness. This really isn't the case with astrology; not once ounce of evidence has ever surfaced that points to it being based in truth at all. I mean, it's great if people want to follow it because it makes them feel good, but trying to mix it up with science is like oil and water.


Let us not keep our minds so open that our brains fall out, and all that.

[Gabriel Syme]

Tater got my point quite well. Science may not be at fault for many of it's problems, but my point is that the things we once thought were wrong could suddenly surprise us. And yes; any scientist interested in the subject should know it's history, back to the days when caveman first found uses for fire.

Anyway, as for astrology, I know it's impropable and all that, but it's just something that I'd keep an eye on. We'll never know what may just come out.

[Forever Finite]

con te partir.
hehehe....

[Gabriel Syme]

Nani ?

*checks the translation in French*

NANDAYYO !!!!

[Forever Finite]

you probably meant "quand".

[Gabriel Syme]

Mebbe.

Perhaps I shouldn't cut and pasted the lyrics of the song.... just felt it had a nice farewell to it... should have translated the lyrics of something, so that I would know what it actually meant.

Neah, I'll change the sig. I'm not leaving yet.

What should I put in it, I wonder... what do you think ?