Theoretical observations from James Gleick’s Chaos – Making a New Science.

While not mentioning astrology, Gleick makes a number of general comments relevant to the matters discussed here. He defines chaos as “a science of the global nature of systems” (p5) in which “The power of self similarity … is a matter of looking at the whole” (p115). The climate models of Lorenz, which “saw order masquerading as randomness” (p22) precisely describes the way in which orderly astrological effects are postulated. Lorenz’s observation that sensitive dependence on initial conditions was "an inescapable consequence of the way small scales intertwined with large,” (p23) and a “quality [which] lurks everywhere” (p67) illustrates the mechanism of the fractal sensitivity of astrological relations.

Gleick discusses the cultural problems of scientific change, noting that “a revolution has an inter-disciplinary character … problems that obsess these theorists are not recognized as legitimate” (p37), “the rare scholars who are nomads by choice are essential to the intellectual welfare of the settled disciplines” (90), and “non-specialists find the new things” (132-3). Of course it is possible to take nomadism too far, as happens when astrologers denigrate objectivity.

Part of the problem in recognizing complexity is that “graphic images are the key” (p38). I previously offered to share graphic images which illustrate my ideas, and remain eager to do so. These images of geocentric patterns of the planets help to illustrate Gleick’s observations that “disorderly behaviour of simple systems … generate complexity: richly organized patterns … with the fascination of living things” (p43), and “the chaos Lorenz discovered … was locally unpredictable, globally stable” (p48).

A feature of complexity that illustrates the difficulty of quantifying earthly correlation to planetary patterns is their non-linearity: “Because of … nonlinearity of equations, a dynamicist would find himself helpless to answer … questions about the future of the system" (p44). “The solvable, orderly, linear systems were the aberrations … people have to know about disorder” (p68). Non-linearity is seen especially in “turbulence … a mess of disorder at all scales, small eddies within large ones … but its nature remains elusive” (122-3) “Equations of fluid flow … are unsolvable except in special cases” (133).

Astrology is perfectly described by the comments “Chaos is ubiquitous, it is stable, it is structured … complicated systems could be understood in terms of easy discrete maps” (p76) and “Over and over again, the world displays a regular irregularity” (98).

The conceptual universality of fractals as the geometry of nature emerges in the comment that “fractal scaling [is] … universal in morphogenesis” (p110) ie that the origin of biological form is inherently fractal, with each natural entity reflecting the larger whole of its niche.

Gleick says “Strange attractors fed the revolution in chaos by giving numerical explorers a clear program … wherever nature seemed to be behaving randomly” (152). He observes that “Phase space portraits of physical systems exposed patterns of motion that were invisible otherwise” (135), and asks “What other changes … would prove to be phase transitions?” (127). These points make me wonder about the planets as attractors and the cusps of the signs as phase transitions.

The objective of astrology is to show that apparently chaotic events on earth correlate with planetary patterns as tabulated in the ephemeris, such that these patterns provide predictive indicators. The null case (disproof of astrology) is that no planetary patterns provide predictive indicators for events on earth. There is a steady gradient of complexity of claimed planetary effects, from the obvious (tides) to the little known (rats increased activity when moon is below horizon) to the debated (Gauquelin statistical effects of planets at eastern horizon; Tarnas correlations between outer planetary aspects and cycles of human history). My view is that astrology as proto-science cannot go much beyond this point, ie that once we enter the realm of natal chart interpretation and prediction, we are largely in the realms of craft. While much of the craft of astrology may well have an empirical basis, it will be a long time before this can be proven. Proceeding step-wise, the next requirement is to explore the mathematics underlying the Gauquelin and Tarnas observations.

Kind regards

Robert Tulip