21 of 29 - Moolam

19.                 Are you again trying to twist words to favour your arguments?

Answer: This is not an attempt to hide or let astrologers hide behind the “words” – but people have to objectively analyze “science”.  Whenever science includes “itself” the problem starts for itself!  Since “astrology” can be used to predict & change the “future” such predictions have to include the “possibility” that such a reading itself is included in the end results predicted!

Yes, I don’t have an answer as of now, but hope rest of the questions help us arrive at a good approximation to the reality of Astrology as Science!

VRVD

(21 of 29 - Moolam)

15 of 29 - Hastham

13.                 So, is there a complete theory?

Answer: Yes, scientists are looking for a “grand unifiend theory” (that they are still searching for).  The issue is that such a thing is in contrast to Godel’s theorem.  Godel’s theorem has been proven that in “any complete” system, there will be “statements” that “cannot” be found to be either true or false!  This theorem is proven, especially when there is “self-reference” (observer being part of the system). 

For example, the statement “Patel, the Indian, says that all Indians are liars”!  This is neither true nor false – if it is true, then him being an Indian is also a liar – hence this statement is false, which leads to the fact that Indians tell the truth.  A paradoxical statement can be found in any system.

With such a proof of “incompleteness” of a complete system, there cannot be a scientific system that can define everything / predict everything.  We have to live with approximations in science too & definitely with Astrology too!

VRVD

(15 of 29 - Hastham)

PS: Brahmam Okatae, Dwaitamum Sukham / Adwaitamum Sukham, Aham Brahmasmi are closer to truth than science... Well, that is just a personal view... inserted here without any rhyme or reason except sudden whim...

13 of 29 - Pooram (Purva Palguni)

11.                 The uncertainty principle is in the order of 10^-34.  That is very small.  Surely then Astrology must be able to predict better if it is considered a science.

Answer: The size of man in the universe must be then measured with respect to the size of universe itself. The Milky way galaxy is approximately 1 x 10²¹ metres.  Man is 2 metres (let us say).  The diameter of “observable” universe is about 8.8 x 10²⁶ metres.  This does not take into account the “unknown”!  So, we are approaching the situation where we are like 1 “error unit” in the universe in magnitude comparison for Uncertainty principle.

So, our astrological predictions for a single individual will have errors to a certain extent – that is we cannot say whether a person will have an accident here, or there or further after!  If we can predict that, then there could be some other error (say accident by nature, or by human or by vehicle or by own carelessness).

The order of uncertainty principle seems to be quite applicable to Astrology too and affects predictions in some scenarios.

VRVD

(13 of 29 - Pooram / Purva Palguni)

12 of 29 - Makham

10.                 So, you agree that Astrology is a prediction & not accurate?

Answer: Yes, it is not difficult to agree that.  Let us look at science. Newton’s theories were thought to be perfect, until they found some problems in “predictions”.  Later Einstein came up with “Theory of Relativitiy” that seems to have better predictions (still it is not 100% accurate – there are some gaps and scientists are trying to find a better approximation)!  Hence, science is for predictions as well! If scientific theories are not able to predict behaviours they are dropped. And still there is no Grand Unified Theory that people are searching for...

With the Schroedinger’s wave equations, “probability” functions are used & they are able to predict only the simplest of atoms – Hydrogen.  Probably Helium atom has been modeled too, but nothing more complex than that, leave alone molecules and then groups of them, then moles of them (6.023 x 10 power 23), etc.!  That is science’s accuracy for you.

Astrology's prediction is closest you can get for the future and to even read the past by someone who is not aware of the events. We will get to other points related to accuracy in later questions.

VRVD

(12 of 29 - Makham)

11 of 29 - Aayilyam (Ashlesha)

9.                You say science is an approximation – how can that be? Isn't it blashphemous?

Answer: People who have studied “modern physics”, “Schroedinger’s wave equation” and “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” will agree that if we go into minute details of any item, we have only “probability” and not “certainty”!  The uncertainty principle states that we cannot have the details of position & velocity accurate beyond a limit – one or the other will be having bigger error in value, if the other is closer in accuracy!

In schools, we first learn the Rutherford atomic model – then it is also taught that this theory is wrong. Then we learn Bohr’s atomic model & later find that is also wrong.  Now we have “Schroedinger’s wave equations”.  By now, we have already learnt from our mistakes and don't take things for certainty.  We have started using “probability” functions, instead of exact equations, in Schroedinger's wave equations, Psi functions, etc!  We have fine-tuned our science based on observations.

That is all – science is as good as Astrology (or as bad; depending on how you want to see it).

VRVD

(11 of 29 - Aayilyam / Ashlesha)

10 of 29 - Poosam (Pusya)

8.                 Is “Astrology” a science?

Answer: Yes, “astrology” is a science in the hands of the expert / master astrologer.  At the same time, in the hands of a half-baked practitioner, there can be incorrect calculations / predictions.

A knife is a useful instrument in the kitchen, but if you are not careful it can cut your own hands.  An expert will be able to use Astrology very efficiently and at the same time correctly.  If an amateur tries to handle it at same speed there can be mistakes and problems.

Please also note that “Science” itself is approximation based on our observations! All through life of science the equations have been "fit" to the data. Not much has been derived from "first principles". What is the first principle?

Hence, Astrology is a science and fits within parameters of how science is and has been.

VRVD

(10 of 29 - Poosam / Pusya)

7 of 29 - Mrugaseerisham

5.                 How do you say result is the same?

Answer: Our Astronomical calculations using Earth centered observations have been as accurate as the scientific calculations by computers. That is proof enough. Eclipses are calculated accurately using the chaya gruhas Rahu and Ketu. This is different from the problems faced by astronomers of the west when they initially adopted geocentric theory.

When the astronomers of the west from BC to 1500 AD had calculations based on “geocentric” theory, the astronomers of later years found it had errors.  Then they came up with heliocentric theory.  In our systems the actual observations & data have always been based on “over thousands of years” (probably more)!  The equations were from the beginning pretty complex & were always “with reference to earth” – and not “with absolute reference”!

Hence, the result of such complex calculations with earth as frame of reference is correct even though the solar system moves in Heliocentric orbit control.

VRVD

(7 of 29 - Mrugaseerisham)

6 of 29 - Rohini

4.                 We know “Helio centric” theory of the movement of planets is correct.  Why do we use “earth” centric calculations in Astrology?

Answer: Scientists know that “Theory of Relativity” is the best approximation (as of now).  In this model there is no “absolute” frame of reference.  Every frame of reference is equally valid & observer can be in any frame of reference.  Hence, if we are able to calculate “every position” relative to us (from earth), such calculation is as equally valid when you calculate them with respect to Sun. 

Please note that the equations will be different because frame of reference changes, but result is same.

If I say that Ram is  4 KM to North East of me, while you see Ram is 4 KM South West of yourself, then it is both valid, assuming you are 8 KM to North east of me. So, every frame of reference is good as long as the correct equations are used with correct transformations.

VRVD

(6 of 29 - Rohini)

5 of 29 - Krittikai

3.                 Why do we not include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto?

Answer: The observations of the ancient civilizations were based on what they were able to see.  The correlations between the events in life, with the “major” celestial objects were noted & then used for predictions to a reasonable accuracy.

Even in science, when you have sequences, we always approximate “by ignoring the terms with higher power”. For example in Binomial theorem based calculations, we use only first 3 or 4 terms and drop the rest as “negligible”.  The reason is those “terms” do not have any “significant difference” in the end result!

Why should “Astrology” need to be a science that is more accurate than “Science” itself? So, we do not need the effects of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto - and still get a reasonable prediction of people's lives.

VRVD

(5 of 29 - Krittikai)

Tirade against Astrology on Vijay TV few months ago

I witnessed this programme from Vijay TV on "Neeya Naana" (You or Me). In this the skeptics took on a tirade against astrology & did not allow the other side to give their points. There was so much ignorance in their statements & their supposed points of Astrology's fallacies.

Though the astrologer who was brought on program predicted lot of things accurately about past life (including divorce), I would like to address the half baked arguments of some, including learned doctors and social activists. Of course, mine is also half-researched, but based on some simple learning from old relatives, friends, seniors and others.

This is going to be addressed in the form of 27 questions (coincidental to the 27 stars in our astrology) and answers to the same over the coming days.

In the next post, I will first give a glimpse of the tirade... also I would like to iterate that I believe astrology when it is done right... I believe Astrology is a science in all aspects (will be addressed too in the Q&A format posts).... Signing off for now...

VRVD