That's what the objective phenomena is. Then of course there is the question of how it works. The correct answer is nobody knows.
astrology and quantum entanglement
- Thread starter thinking
- Start date
That's what the objective phenomena is. Then of course there is the question of how it works. The correct answer is nobody knows.
It means that's a behavior of reality regardless what anybody's opinion of it is.
yes but you can look at entanglement the other way from the otherside
and say the reverse is true then
that the spin of A to the right and the spin of B to the left nulls any quantum entanglement
regardless of anybody's opinion of it
so in the end there is no entanglement
This assumes way too much. The stars are fine as they are.
there is NO assuming to much
if anything there is assuming to little
it seems to me that we look at the Universe just from our perspective
we have to stop this
You mean you believe its genetics on the basis of identical twin studies? What if it wasn't genes alone but also astrology? What if I say intelligence is a product of nature -[genetics(physical)+astrology(natures Operating system based on sun and planets)]+ nurture?
Since you seems to be way too confident about your existing understanding, will you be willing to reprocess the entire set of studies conducted and see if they made a mistake by guessing its entirely genetics+nurture? What if they really missed out the component which still remains as the biggest cause for confusions and contradictory theories for centuries?
Er, no. Science makes predictions all the time. We model things, and then use those models to predict outcomes of future events. You know, like launching satellites, predicting the weather, ...
I think you mean predictions are only tricks when it comes to Astrology. What use is it if it can't tell you something you don't already know?
If you want to prove the validity of Astrology, you MUST.
Ok. now i get it. Its possible outside the existing limits of science since we don't have any clear scientific methods to define or measure subjective factors such as human behavior/emotions and character. So if i say so and so zodiac behaves in so and so manner under so and so circumstances, you need to have a group of people equally informed(from same zodiac, educated specifically for the purpose of collecting data and comparing without the use of any recording devices) to collect samples and test the predictions outcome, knowing the samples personally for a long time to have won their confidence(hard to collect genuine information without having their confidence). Also its most important to make sure that the subject is completely unaware of being observed. Which is really really hard within the orthodox limits of science if you can imagine the requirements needed to meet such a challenge.
Current standards of science which people use to test matter cannot be used when it comes to thoughts, behavior and emotions in its natural state. If being observed, the natural state becomes social state automatically hence making it impossible for having genuine input.
Do you think its possible? I don't think so.
If it failed, that always doesn't mean the system is wrong. Its possible that tests were not suitable or/and they tested the wrong understanding of astrology like predictions, birth chart which cannot be even tested without explaining the dynamics and importance of astrology in human psychology and how it affects us and influence us.
For any common man, knowledge of astrology is from magazine/newspaper predictions and birth chart written in spooky language and they all know as good as our beloved Read only knows about astrology. Scientists test those factors without even caring to think if it can be tested like every other field of science. I saw Richard Dawkin's and Carl Sagan testing astrology out of newspaper predictions. If i never cared to think any further and choose to believe them because of their reputation, i would have made a fool out of myself. Its same like catholics who buy every thing Pope utters even if its nonsense.
There was a time when i could walk into a restaurant of a pub, sit and observe people for a few mts to few hours and tell their zodiac sign. I know how many years i spend to prepare the database of facial patterns, smiles, gestures(all those what appear for a fraction of a second on people's face) all inside my brain to do such a small task. I could never do it correctly if i forced myself to think and match patterns and I had to do it naturally without any prior intention taking my own time. If doing such a thing is so time consuming and difficult, may be you can begin to wonder how easy it could be to test astrology as per the narrow methods of science.
The other side?
A fictitous example of trying to "detangle" two particles is not the reverse of the behavior of two entangled particles. Consequently, if you want to detangle particles you have to find a way to ensure their eigenstates are not sharing a wave function.
I don't know if you realize this, but quantum entanglement isn't theoretical. It is an inducable and observable phenomenon.
that's by asking them their birthday and such information right? We can deduct their sun sign by observing people's character, gestures, certain mannerisms and so on.
No. I mean I know that knowledge, thought process, and genetics are the contributors to the phenomenon. I also believe this (via the definition "accept with evidence").
I would say you are trying to associate the word "astrology" with "nature" in an attempt to give it legitimacy. The "operating system" of nature is a field of study humans today call physics.
Virtually all scientific knowledge is tentative and self correcting when something is missing or incorrect and I have no issues when that happens.
What science does show is that all human para-psychic-divine claims are false; however, it also shows why those human claims exist. As long as you don't or can't comprehend this, you will continue to see a big "cause for confusion and contradictory theories...". Meanwhile, real scientific knwoeldge will continue to grow, new technology will continue to be developed using that knowledge, and astrology... well won't. But don't fret... claims of astrology will continue to persist and both claimers and believers will serve as a source for studying odd human behavior.
So what causes life?
Science can deal with any matter that can be observed, tested and experimented. Its not yet developed to handle thoughts or create artificial life. And if it cannot be found, its automatically rejected by science by building up a new theory in psychology. And having a huge database of psychological problems haven't decreased the amount of psychological problems we face with time. It has multiplied over the years. Why does that happen? Why science failed to prevent such troubles? Is psychological problems an obvious side effect of social conditioning? So if we avoid social conditioning what remains? how would humans behave outside society? What accounts for the difference in tastes, preferences, likes and dislikes?
Unless we learn to acknowledge our limitations in knowledge about the nature, we cannot go far into understanding what it is all about.
Last edited:
Well, no, you can't.
One simple test of astrology is to line up 10 people and ask astrologers to interview them, observe their "character, gestures, certain mannerisms and so on" and then write down what their sun signs are - all without knowing the birth dates of the people.
When this simple experiment has been done, we notice two things:
1. The astrologers do no better than random guess.
2. Different astrologers pick different signs for the same people.
So, what does that tell you?
I guess you haven't read my previous replies completely. or do you skip it? I did mentioned under what all circumstances it can be tested and when all it would fail.
Natural processes of reality.
It can't handle thoughts? You'll have to clarify what you mean. As far as artificial life is concerned, I'll speculate that eventually humans will be able to make it.
What's "it"? Human claims for the existence of weird things?
I don't know? If by psychological problems you are referring to claims/beliefs in the existence of weird things then those aren't psychological problems. They are components of natural human behavior.
I am not sure what you mean. What troubles has science been trying to prevent but failed?
Again, what I think you are considering as psychological problems are natural human behaviors. Social conditioning is part of the puzzle but most if it is purely genetic. Take for example the psychological phenomenon of anthropomorphism (i.e. placing human characteristics on non-human things). Bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, the grim reaper, and god are all examples of this. Humans anthropomorphize because it arose as a survival advantage and something to keep in mind is that humans are wired to detect difference, collect energy, and persist... not uncover the mysteries of reality. So, it makes sense that people whom don't have adequate knowledge and thought process are going to think about the world in terms that they are genetically inclined to... which are often very incorrect but promote their survival.
I don't know where you have been for the past century, but in case you haven't noticed our knowedge about nature has exploded despite perceived limitations.
I read them.
If it fails the simplest tests, what use is it?
Can you show that astrology works in any way at all?