This website offers postulation, evidence, and discourse regarding the reverse engineering of astrology and three problems that astrological theory needs to answer:

1. What is the physical correspondence between the individual and the celestial environment that surrounds the individual? This theory would develop mathematical structures based on natural symmetries that account for astrological data and observations.


2. What are the essential operations of the signs, houses, aspects, and planets when reduced to definitive meanings? This theory would develop a scientific inquiry of astrology and a taxonomy that would account for empirical evidence and significance.


3. What is the psychological mechanism of astrological interpretation? This theory would develop the assessment of astrological patterns, projection, and dynamics. It would draw upon the fuzzy logic of astrological wisdom and divination as well as the limits of disambiguation.

To begin to answer these questions, it is necessary to consider three assumptions regarding astrology, which may be the product of unexamined beliefs. These are the assumptions of astrological mechanism, celestial influences, and credulity effects.

Astrological Mechanism — Many people today believe that science rejects astrology because it does not present a causal mechanism, amenable to the centuries-old models of standard physical theory, which would operate between the celestial system and the individual. The problem with this belief is not simply that for many scientific applications the classical models of physical theory are inadequate, but that astrology has never relied on a mechanistic model. Instead, astrology uses a model that is based on natural symmetries.

In standard physics today, the universe is regarded to have no center and there is no concept of symmetry based on a universal center. This view contributes to a limited view of nature where processes are understood only as causal mechanisms. In astrology, the individual is regarded to be the center of the universe and there are as many universes as there are individuals. Astrological operations are normally understood as symmetries centered on these individual universes.

The ancient Hermetic maxim states: "As above, so below." Astrology applies this maxim to the effect that the inner world of the individual is symmetrically related to the outer world of the celestial environment. These two worlds, the inner and outer, are unified by the natural symmetries of the tropical signs, diurnal houses, and synodic aspects, which are the frames of reference used in Western astrology. These frames of reference comprise a world view that allows for experimental hypotheses, empirical observations, and falsifiable evaluations of data, the same as for causal mechanisms.

Evidence for this model of symmetry is found in hologram fragments. Each fragment contains a pattern that is an image of the whole. Another example is the so-called "self-similarity" found in fractal geometries, in which the same shapes or patterns, such as Mandelbrot or Julia sets, are repeated at different scales within a fractal environment. In ancient thought, similar concepts are illustrated by the metaphor of Indra's Net and the Buddhist principle of interpenetration. Although these and numerous other examples are not recognized in standard science as such, they demonstrate natural symmetries, and they fall into the category of what may be called cosmic symmetry. The behaviors of microcosms reflect the behaviors of their macrocosms and vice versa. Within an environment, behaviors at individual boundaries implement cosmic symmetry.

Although relatively inconspicuous compared to other symmetries, cosmic symmetry is nevertheless a feature that is found throughout nature, and this natural feature seems to have gone unacknowledged in standard science for the past 400 years.

Celestial Influences — While it can be said that people, social dynamics, and events influence one another through their interactions, and that planets and stars have properties because they are things, it cannot not be said that planets and stars directly influence people, society, or events, because there is no known effective interaction between them. However, if people and events reflect celestial behaviors by a type of symmetry as astrology purports (i.e. as above—so below), then the planetary or stellar "influences" are indirect. They come from the individuals and events that influence—or try to influence—one another through their behaviors while diachronically reflecting and implementing astrological properties. Influence is not a far off thing. It is where the boundaries of individuals draw together. It is an exchange of intelligence and intention.

This is why it is proper to think of celestial objects as having astrological properties rather than astrological influence. Being ambiguous, the latter can be construed to mean direct physical influence, animism, determinism, and other extraordinary associations beyond normal social and causal influences among individuals. Thinking in terms of properties instead of influences relieves researchers of the semantic assumption of direct celestial interactions where none are suggested. Free of the burden of this assumption, researchers can carry on with their work, which is based on mapping and measuring principles, which everyone, in principle, can agree to.

It is not so important to know how celestial objects come to have astrological properties or how symmetries operate. These are simply things that are empirically observed, like any other properties or behaviors in nature. Researchers should be circumspect in their language to infer astrological properties and behavior through symmetrically diachronic observations of influences among individuals and events.

Credulity Effects — Because it is based on the birth chart, astrology is highly individualized, yet some people argue that chart interpretations appear to work only because they contain general wisdom that is subjectively evaluated by credulous people. Two psychological tendencies are cited. Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to remember accurate interpretations more than inaccurate interpretations and to judge the integrity of the interpretations by what they remember. Additionally, the Forer (or Barnum) effect is the tendency for people to regard an interpretation as accurate when it appears to be personally tailored for them, even though the interpretation is so vague that it could apply to a wide range of people.

This view of astrology stems from the fact that normal supportive conversation contains bits of wisdom and helpful warnings that are generally positive, true, and apply to nearly everyone. People desire to hear such hopeful talk often in their daily lives because it fulfills a need. It helps them to visualize how their lives fit into the larger social fabric. People tend to remember these friendly words and let themselves be affected by them.

There is no doubt that by its supportive role, astrological consultation contains some of the same bits of wisdom, warnings, and help that by necessity are found in normal supportive conversations. These are factors that contribute to confirmation bias and Forer effect. Yet these factors, simply by their presence, do not explain what people believe. They do not diminish the astrological content of interpretations, which, as can be seen in any astrology text, is different for different astrological features. To separate the astrological from non-astrological factors in consultations requires study, and even further study to separate the astrological factors that might be associated with greater effects from those that might be associated with lesser effects. For critics who wish to make the credulity argument, there is no getting around these necessary evaluations.

Because of the attention given to them with regard to astrological consultations, it has been indirectly implied that confirmation bias and the Forer effect are insurmountable obstacles to astrological research, but this is simply not true. These psychological tendencies, as well as selection bias and other non-astrological artifacts, are objectively overcome by ranking the level of confidence in genuine and non-genuine evaluations in double-blind studies (such as studies where astrologers rank psychological assessments of individuals against a natal chart or where test participants rank astrological profiles of individuals against themselves), and by ranking the relative magnitudes of measurable outcomes in studies of specific astrological features (such as studies where rank of individuals by eminence in sports is compared to Mars placement or where rank of individuals by reddishness of hair color is compared to Mars placement). These ranking methods greatly elevate the sensitivity of astrological testing. Studies that have been properly evaluated with ranking controls have supported traditional astrological effects and have remained unrefuted for decades.¹

The potential for confirmation bias and the Forer effect is an important argument that should support the use of ranking controls in all astrological research. Yet, despite the attention given to these psychological tendencies, ranking controls that would virtually eliminate them are either lacking, ineffectively applied, or even dismissed as producing an unknown artifact in research claims against astrology.²

1. For example, see: Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving (1996), The Tenacious Mars Effect, ISBN 1-871-989-15-9.

2. For an example where an established test protocol with ranking controls [Suitbert Ertel. "Raising the Hurdle for the Athletes' Mars Effect: Association Co-varies with Eminence," Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2(4), 1988.] is ignored to avoid a positive result, see Claude Benski et al. (1996), The "Mars Effect": A French Test of 1,000 Sports Champions, ISBN 0-87975-988-7. Another example where ranking controls are ineffectively applied to avoid a positive result is Shawn Carlson (1985), A double-blind test of astrology; see criticism by Joseph Vidmar (2008), A Comprehensive Review of the Carlson Astrology Experiments, and also Suitbert Ertel, “Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests.” Journal of Scientific Exploration. (vol. 23:2) 2009.