Astrology, just curious...

[Burninator]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cawz

The merit is that everything in nature is based around a pattern or cycle. From the universe down to the atoms.

Man has been attempting to understand and read these cycles for many ages. Go take a look at how many branches of astrology these are and have been through history. Do you think that all of them are 100% absolutely baseless?

I dont neccisarily agree that the reading has any merit (we arent bright enough to figure that out yet), but man has known that patterns and cycles in nature affect and are dependant on each-other, and one shouldnt totally disregard it.

What patterns and cycles are you referring too exactly? Saying "everything in nature is based around a pattern or cycle" is kind of vague to say the least.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cawz

The merit is that everything in nature is based around a pattern or cycle. From the universe down to the atoms.

Not true, it only happens to appear so on a larger scale. The universe is inherently fuzzy, so much so that it is a basic property of the universe that as you approach the more basic levels of reality you cannot measure patterns at all; the nature of reality prevents you from doing so. If you try and measure one aspect of a particle more accurately (velocity say), the less accurately you can measure another (say its position). Without knowing things like where a particle is or where its going properly, it's impossible to determine if it's in a cycle or not (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

There are many processes which are random and have no pattern or cycle at all. Radioactive decay is completely random, the motions of molecules, positions of electrons around an atom, are random.

Even on the large scale, the three body problem shows that some things are inherently chaotic, not deterministic... If I recall properly if you took three masses in space and tried to calculate how they'll orbit each other, well that should be straight forward right? Well it isn't the system is inherently chaotic; it's not a limitation of the equations or the precision, it's a limitation of the framework being used.

Anyway my point being that at its most basic level the universe is NOT based around a pattern or a cycle, it's non-deterministic and fuzzy enough that it's impossible to even measure if there is a pattern. It's just at larger scales that patterns sometimes emerge.

Originally Posted by Cawz

Man has been attempting to understand and read these cycles for many ages. Go take a look at how many branches of astrology these are and have been through history. Do you think that all of them are 100% absolutely baseless?

I wouldn't call them baseless.. our brains are evolved to see patterns, it's what we are best at, it's what caused us to survive and our non-pattern seeing mates to not. The question is are those patterns useful, and I would say until it's shown that they are useful then they are useless.

How many years have been added to the human lifespan by astrology? How many more people can we feed today because of astrology? How many lives have been saved because of correct predictions of astrology?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Because he's so smart, he has to rub in in that he believes in nothing. Which IMO, causes me to recall the saying that he who believes in nothing, will fall for anything.

"[I believe] in nothing" - Straw-man.

"...he who believes in nothing, will fall for anything." - Non sequitur and question begging. It's also an argument from authority fallacy.

Four logical fallacies in a 33 word post. That's impressive.

[Antithesis]

I find it troubling that the leader of a nation like France is dependent on someone outside of his 'real' advisor group to make decisions. JFK had the same type of concerns surrounding him when he was seeking election because he was a Catholic. I'm sure for some in this thread it's not much different, though.

Astrology is just so uninteresting. It has little to no bearing in my life - it's not even something that I can rail against. I just don't care.

Oh, and Wayne, re: evman, I always find it more amusing to read his posts as if they are made by some weird angry clown. Or angry Mr. Peanut or something. Then I laugh.

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by photon

Not true, it only happens to appear so on a larger scale. The universe is inherently fuzzy, so much so that it is a basic property of the universe that as you approach the more basic levels of reality you cannot measure patterns at all; the nature of reality prevents you from doing so. If you try and measure one aspect of a particle more accurately (velocity say), the less accurately you can measure another (say its position). Without knowing things like where a particle is or where its going properly, it's impossible to determine if it's in a cycle or not (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

There are many processes which are random and have no pattern or cycle at all. Radioactive decay is completely random, the motions of molecules, positions of electrons around an atom, are random.

Even on the large scale, the three body problem shows that some things are inherently chaotic, not deterministic... If I recall properly if you took three masses in space and tried to calculate how they'll orbit each other, well that should be straight forward right? Well it isn't the system is inherently chaotic; it's not a limitation of the equations or the precision, it's a limitation of the framework being used.

Anyway my point being that at its most basic level the universe is NOT based around a pattern or a cycle, it's non-deterministic and fuzzy enough that it's impossible to even measure if there is a pattern. It's just at larger scales that patterns sometimes emerge.

Or maybe we are just unable to see patterns at the smaller scales. Saying that patterns sometimes emerge at larger scales ignores the fact that size is relative. Maybe we are anable to see how patterns emerge at smaller scales, since we are big dumb humans.

Obviously there is no way to prove this, but I just was never convinced of the theory of randomness. Saying that something is random is saying that it is able to be completely unaffected by outside forces, which I do not believe is possible. So if something is being affected by an outside force, then it cannot be random. If something is in a true 100% vacuum and still random, how do we know that there are not forces that they cannot see, feel or recognize that is having an affect. And is a true 100% vacuum possible?

I think randomness is associted with cognitive thought. I dont buy that something inanimate can be completely random (a little bit of the butterfly effect here I guess). Even in humans, how much of our lives are random. Can we ignore that fact that we know very little of the power in our brains, and just chalk things up to randomness?

Originally Posted by photon

I wouldn't call them baseless.. our brains are evolved to see patterns, it's what we are best at, it's what caused us to survive and our non-pattern seeing mates to not. The question is are those patterns useful, and I would say until it's shown that they are useful then they are useless.

How many years have been added to the human lifespan by astrology? How many more people can we feed today because of astrology? How many lives have been saved because of correct predictions of astrology?

Interesting thought about humans attempting to see patterns. Thats a good point. Seeing patterns are very important to our survival, as you mention.

As far as astrological patterns, yeah, it hasnt done too much in furthering society. But that could also be the problem of astrologers, not astrology. Maybe we are monkeys that are trying to figure out a vast universal interlocking patterns.

For the record, I never read my horoscope and think it pretty silly. But I do believe in patterns and cycles and am interested in how things fit together.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cawz

Or maybe we are just unable to see patterns at the smaller scales. Saying that patterns sometimes emerge at larger scales ignores the fact that size is relative. Maybe we are anable to see how patterns emerge at smaller scales, since we are big dumb humans.

Well the science at this point says that you cannot measure both the velocity and the location of a particle at the same time; the more accurately you measure one the less accurately you can measure the other.

So I either know exactly where something is and have no idea where it's going, or I know exactly what direction its going and how fast but I have no idea where it actually is.

Yes you can say "maybe we are just unable to see the patterns", but that's just pure speculation with no basis other than a desire for it to be that way.

Deciding a view on the structure of reality first then speculating on what the observations should be and speculating as to why they don't like up is kind of backwards don't you think?

Obviously there is no way to prove this, but I just was never convinced of the theory of randomness.

I don't know what you mean by the theory of randomness. And if you aren't convinced of something then there must be reasons for that, observations.. evidence of some sort...

Saying that something is random is saying that it is able to be completely unaffected by outside forces, which I do not believe is possible. So if something is being affected by an outside force, then it cannot be random.

Sure it's possible. What if it was being affected by outside forces in a consistent way? Then the outside force would be removed as a factor.

Or what if the outside force has no impact on the randomness of the process? I could paint a rock red or blue but which atoms will undergo radioactive decay will still be random; the colour of the rock won't have any impact.

If something is in a true 100% vacuum and still random, how do we know that there are not forces that they cannot see, feel or recognize that is having an affect. And is a true 100% vacuum possible?

You don't need to be able to see, feel, or recognize the force to be able to measure its affect. If some unknown force has an impact on the randomness of an phenomenon then it can be seen if you analyze the results statistically.

I think randomness is associted with cognitive thought. I dont buy that something inanimate can be completely random (a little bit of the butterfly effect here I guess).

Associated with cognitive thought in what way? Based on what evidence? Please don't say "What the Bleep do we know?"...

Even in humans, how much of our lives are random. Can we ignore that fact that we know very little of the power in our brains, and just chalk things up to randomness?

When talking about people's lives, I don't think random would be a good word to use as most of what happens is in response to our environment and the choices we and others make.

And I hope you're not trying to bring up the "we only use some small percentage of our brain" myth.. that's just a myth and doesn't make sense from a few different points.. from an evolutionary point of view having something that takes up such a significant portion of the body's resources but only works a small fraction of its potential would never continue.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp