The Pattern Problem: Why Scientists Got Astrology Wrong (And What That Means for Reality)

A detective story about invisible patterns, developing brains, and the measurement tools that missed them

Prologue: The Radio Tower Paradox

Imagine you're a scientist in 1850. A colleague rushes into your lab with an outrageous claim: "I believe towers can send invisible messages through the air!"

You're a rigorous thinker, so you design an experiment. You calculate how hard the tower pushes on the receiver. The force is... basically zero. "Aha!" you declare. "Towers cannot send messages because they don't push hard enough on receivers. Case closed."

You publish your findings. The scientific community nods approvingly. Everyone agrees: invisible messages through towers are nonsense.

Except you're completely wrong.

The tower does send messages. Just not through pushing. Through electromagnetic waves — patterns of energy your instruments can't detect because you're measuring the wrong thing.

This is the story of how modern science made the exact same mistake with astrology.

But unlike the 1850s scientist who just needed better instruments, our mistake reveals something far stranger: that reality itself might be fundamentally about patterns, not stuff. And that realization changes everything.

Chapter 1: The Doctor Who Killed Astrology

The Calculation That Convinced Everyone

In 1985, physicist Shawn Carlson published what many still consider the definitive scientific takedown of astrology in Nature — one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals.

But Carlson's study wasn't the final blow. That honor goes to something simpler, more elegant, and more devastating: a calculation any physics student can do.

Here's the calculation:

Take Jupiter — the largest planet in our solar system, massive beyond imagination. Calculate its gravitational pull on a newborn baby. Now calculate the gravitational pull of the obstetrician standing next to the delivery table.

The result? The doctor's gravity is stronger than Jupiter's.

Way stronger. Not even close.

If gravity is how planets influence us, then your birth doctor matters more than Jupiter. Your childhood teddy bear exerted more gravitational influence than Mars. The hospital building outweighed Saturn's pull by orders of magnitude.

Astrology, it seemed, was dead. Killed by simple arithmetic.

The Problem Nobody Noticed

Except... there's something weird about this victory.

The argument assumes that if astrology works, it must work through gravitational force. But who said that? Not astrologers. They never claimed Jupiter was pulling on babies.

Traditional astrology talks about "influences" and "correspondences" and "as above, so below" — vague, yes, but clearly not about gravitational force. The ancients didn't know about gravity when they developed astrology. They were describing something else.

Science had won an argument astrology never made.

It's like disproving telepathy by showing that brains don't have radio antennas. Technically true, but... what if telepathy (hypothetically) works some other way? You haven't disproven it — you've just proven it's not radio waves.

This should have been obvious. But sometimes the most obvious things are the hardest to see.

Chapter 2: Patterns All the Way Down

The Whirlpool That Wasn't There

Go to a river. Find a whirlpool. Point to it. "There," you say, "that's a whirlpool."

Now answer this: What is the whirlpool made of?

"Water," you say.

Wrong. Or rather, incomplete.

The whirlpool is made of water moving in a specific pattern. If the water stops moving in that pattern, the whirlpool disappears — instantly, completely — even though all the water is still there.

The pattern is the thing. The water is just what the pattern is made of.

Now here's where it gets weird.

What Electrons Are Made Of

In the 1940s, physicists started discovering something disturbing about particles. Electrons, protons, quarks — the fundamental building blocks of matter — weren't behaving like tiny marbles. They were behaving like... whirlpools.

Stable patterns of energy. Vortices in quantum fields. Geometric configurations that persist over time.

A particle isn't a "thing" with substance. It's a stable geometric pattern.

This isn't fringe science. This is quantum field theory — the most successful scientific theory ever created, tested to ridiculous precision. Richard Feynman, Frank Wilczek, Nobel prizes all around.

The equation that describes an electron doesn't say "here's a tiny ball." It says "here's a pattern with these geometric properties."

Why This Changes Everything

If matter itself is pattern...

If the fundamental substance of reality is geometric relationships, not stuff...

Then asking "how can patterns influence development?" isn't proposing magic.

It's asking whether patterns can influence patterns.

And suddenly, the gravitational force argument doesn't just fail — it becomes irrelevant. You're measuring the wrong category of thing.

Chapter 3: The Brain That Freezes in Time

The Kitten Experiment Nobody Forgets

In the 1960s, neuroscientists David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel did something that sounds almost cruel: they raised kittens in environments with only horizontal lines. No vertical lines anywhere. Just horizontal stripes, for weeks.

Then they let the kittens out into the normal world.

The kittens were blind to vertical lines. Forever.

Their eyes worked perfectly. The vertical lines were there. Light bounced off them, entered the kittens' eyes, hit their retinas. But the kittens' brains couldn't see them. They would walk straight into vertical poles while easily avoiding horizontal ones.

Why? Because during a critical period in development — a window of time when the visual cortex is wiring itself — the kittens' brains didn't receive the pattern of "vertical." So they never built the neural architecture to process it.

The window closed. The brain hardened. The pattern became permanent.

Hubel and Wiesel won the Nobel Prize for discovering critical periods. This isn't controversial. This is established neuroscience.

The Mouse Whose Clock Never Changed

Fast forward to 2011. Neuroscientist Doug McMahon has a question: can timing patterns permanently shape the brain?

He raises baby mice under different day lengths. Some get long days (lots of light). Some get short days (less light). Then he moves all the mice to the same normal lighting conditions.

The mice keep the patterns from when they were born. For life.

The "long day" mice have different brain rhythms than "short day" mice — permanently. Their neurons fire in different patterns. Their behaviors follow different cycles. All because of a pattern present during a critical developmental window.

As researcher Chris Ciarleglio said: "What is particularly striking is that the imprinting affects both the animal's behavior and the cycling of neurons in the master biological clock in their brains."

The Uncomfortable Question

So here's what we know for certain:

Brains wire themselves during critical periods based on patterns present in the environment
These patterns create permanent neural architecture
The patterns need not be strong — they just need to be present and consistent
Timing matters enormously — the same pattern before or after the window does nothing

Now the question nobody wants to ask:

What other patterns are present during these critical windows that we haven't been measuring?

Day length is just the sun's geometric pattern — one body, one rotation. Birth happens in a geometric context that includes the sun, moon, and planets. All creating patterns. All present. All potentially imprint-able.

Are we sure we've measured all the patterns that matter?

Chapter 4: The Signal Nobody Heard

Why Radio Stations Don't Shout

Two radio stations are broadcasting:

Station A: 1,000 watts of power, broadcasting pure static
Station B: 10 watts of power, broadcasting clear speech

Which one does your radio pick up?

Station B. Every time. Without hesitation.

Why? Because radio receivers don't respond to power. They respond to pattern.

The strong signal is gibberish. The weak signal contains information. Your radio doesn't care about strength — it cares about whether the pattern matches what it's listening for.

The Doctor vs. Jupiter (Revisited)

Remember the gravitational force argument? The doctor pulls harder on the baby than Jupiter does, therefore Jupiter doesn't matter?

Let's apply radio logic.

The Doctor:

Pulls harder (more gravitational force)
Different position every time (no consistent pattern)
Different doctor for each baby (no repeatability)
Force varies randomly (no information content)

Jupiter:

Pulls weaker (less gravitational force)
Precise geometric position (consistent pattern)
Same position for all babies born at that time and place (repeatable)
Pattern is calculable and measurable (information content)

Which matters more for pattern-imprinting: strong random force or weak consistent pattern?

If developing brains are pattern-sensitive — which they absolutely are, as we proved with the mice — then comparing gravitational forces is like comparing radio stations by wattage.

You're measuring the wrong thing.

The Tuning Fork Problem

If I want to make a tuning fork vibrate across the room, I could:

Option A: Scream at it really loudly
Option B: Hum its resonant frequency quietly

Option B works every time. Option A rarely works, even though it's much louder.

Why? Resonance.

When the frequency matches, even weak signals create strong responses. When the frequency doesn't match, even strong signals do nothing.

Could developing neural systems have "resonant frequencies" in geometric pattern space? Could certain configurations create amplified responses despite weak gravitational fields?

We don't know. But we've never looked.

Because we've been measuring volume (gravitational force) instead of frequency (geometric pattern).

Chapter 5: The Experiment That Everyone Cites (And Nobody Understands)

The Carlson Test: What Actually Happened

Back to 1985. Shawn Carlson's famous study in Nature.

The setup seemed perfect: get professional astrologers, give them birth charts, give them personality test results, and see if they can match charts to the right people better than chance.

Result? They couldn't. Astrology debunked. Science wins.

Except...

Twenty-four years later, in 2009, a German professor named Suitbert Ertel did something scientists are supposed to do: he checked the math.

Carlson had broken his data into small sub-groups and analyzed each separately. When you break data into tiny pieces, you lose statistical power. It's like trying to hear a whisper in a noisy room by listening to one second at a time instead of the whole sentence.

Ertel analyzed the total data — the whole sample, all at once, the way statisticians normally do.

The result? Statistically significant.

The astrologers had matched charts to personalities better than chance. Not hugely better — the effect size was small (about 10–15% better than random). But significantly, measurably better.

The study that "disproved" astrology actually showed a small but real effect.

The Deeper Problem With the Test

But here's the really interesting part: even if Carlson's original conclusion was right, the test doesn't prove what people think it proves.

The Carlson test measures whether astrologers can consciously interpret charts accurately.

That's a skill — like reading X-rays or interpreting EKGs. Even if the underlying phenomenon is real, practitioners might be bad at reading it.

What the test should measure: Do geometric configurations at birth correlate with neural development patterns?

What the test actually measured: Can astrologers consciously extract personality information from charts?

These are completely different questions.

The Meteorologist Analogy

Imagine testing whether weather exists by asking meteorologists to predict the weather by looking at cloud photos.

They fail. "Aha!" you declare. "Weather is fake!"

But weather exists whether or not meteorologists can predict it from photos. Their failure proves they can't read clouds perfectly, not that atmospheric pressure doesn't exist.

Same logic applies here.

Even if astrologers can't consciously read charts accurately (which the Carlson test suggests they can, just not amazingly well), that doesn't prove geometric patterns don't influence neural development.

It just proves astrology-as-practiced is imperfect.

Which... everyone already knew.

Chapter 6: The Twins Who Weren't Identical

The Time Twins Argument

Skeptics have another ace up their sleeve: time twins.

The logic seems airtight: if birth time determines personality, then people born at the same time and place should be identical. Twins born minutes apart should be virtually the same person.

They're not. Therefore, astrology is false.

Except... our theory doesn't predict identical twins.

The Foundation That Isn't The House

Imagine two houses built on identical foundations:

Same concrete mix
Poured the same day
Same lot, same soil conditions
Same blueprint

Thirty years later, are the houses identical?

Of course not.

One got repainted blue, the other stayed white. One added a deck. One got a new roof after storm damage. One has a meticulously maintained garden. The other has wildflowers.

But they're both recognizably "the same design."

They share structural characteristics: the same load-bearing capacity, the same stress points, the same tendency to settle on the south corner, the same acoustics, the same natural light patterns.

Different paint. Different furniture. Different history. Same foundation.

What Time Twins Should Share

Our hypothesis predicts time twins share structural templates (neural architecture patterns), not specific outcomes (personality traits).

What's the difference?

Structural Template: "This person's neural oscillations favor theta-gamma coupling, creating a bias toward pattern-recognition over linear processing."

Specific Outcome: "This person is introverted."

The first is architecture. The second is behavior. Architecture constrains behavior but doesn't determine it.

Two people with the same neural architecture might become a scientist or an artist (both pattern-recognition fields), be introverted or extroverted (depending on social experiences), and have very different life stories — while their brains process information in characteristically similar ways.

Testing this requires neural measurements (EEG, fMRI), not personality tests. And as far as I can tell, nobody's ever done that study.

We rejected astrology based on personality tests given to time twins, when our theory predicts the effects should show up in neural architecture, not personality.

Once again: measuring the wrong thing.

Chapter 7: What the Photoperiod Proves

The Pattern That Everyone Accepts

Season of birth affects your brain. Permanently.

Born in winter? Slightly higher schizophrenia risk. Born in spring? Slightly higher ADHD risk. Born in summer? Different again.

This is published, replicated, accepted science. Nobody argues with it.

Why?

Because photoperiod (day length) during perinatal development imprints the circadian system. Light patterns during critical windows create lasting neural changes.

The mechanism is proven:

Photoperiod → retinal input → suprachiasmatic nucleus
SCN → pineal gland → melatonin
Melatonin → gene expression cascades
Gene expression → permanent neurobiological changes

A geometric pattern (sun position) permanently shapes brain development.

The Question Nobody Asks

If a one-body geometric pattern (sun–earth) can imprint neurobiology...

Why are we so confident that multi-body geometric patterns (sun–earth–moon–planets) don't add information?

"Because gravity is too weak!"

But photoperiod isn't about gravity either. It's about light patterns. And light patterns are electromagnetic waves — patterns of energy. Not pushing. Not pulling. Patterning.

The Geometric Hierarchy

Consider the evidence hierarchically:

Level 1: Earth's Rotation Creates the day/night cycle. Proven to affect brain development. Mechanism understood.

Level 2: Earth's Orbit Creates seasons. Proven to affect brain development. Mechanism understood.

Level 3: Moon's Orbit Creates monthly cycle. Affects ocean tides (proven). Affects birth timing (documented). Affects brain development (unknown — untested).

Level 4: Planetary Configurations Create geometric patterns. Assumed to be too weak to affect anything. Never properly tested.

We know levels 1 and 2 matter. We're certain level 4 doesn't matter. But have we actually checked? Or did we just calculate gravitational force and call it a day?

Chapter 8: The Measurement Nobody Made

The Telescope-Microscope Problem

If you only have a microscope, you might conclude elephants don't exist.

If you only have a telescope, you might conclude bacteria don't exist.

Both conclusions are wrong. The problem isn't reality — it's scale mismatch.

We have exquisite instruments for measuring forces. Gravitational force: we can detect waves from black holes colliding billions of light-years away. Electromagnetic force: we can measure single photons. Nuclear forces: we can probe the inside of protons.

We have primitive instruments for measuring geometric pattern effects on developing biology.

Why? Because we've been convinced they don't exist, so we never built the tools to look.

What We'd Need to Measure

If geometric patterns influence neural development, we'd need:

Precise birth timing. Currently, most birth certificates record time to the nearest hour. What's needed is second-level precision, because pattern changes minute to minute.

Neural architecture measurement. Currently we use personality tests, which measure behavior, not brain structure. What's needed is EEG, fMRI, or connectome mapping, since effects should appear in brain wiring rather than necessarily in behavior.

Longitudinal tracking. Currently we use one-time snapshots. What's needed is tracking from birth through critical periods, because pattern effects emerge developmentally.

Large samples. Currently studies use hundreds of subjects. What's needed are tens of thousands, because small effects require large samples.

Geometric pattern analysis. Currently we use simple sun-sign categories. What's needed is full multi-body geometric configurations, because complex patterns contain more information.

The Study Nobody's Done

Here's the experiment that would actually test this hypothesis:

Phase 1 (Birth): Record exact birth time to second precision. Calculate the complete geometric configuration. Store cord blood for genetics.

Phase 2 — Development (Ages 0–7): Monthly EEG measurements. Track developmental milestones. Record environmental factors.

Phase 3 — Maturation (Ages 7–21): Annual neural imaging. Cognitive testing. Behavioral assessments.

Phase 4 — Analysis: Cluster developmental trajectories. Test whether geometric patterns predict cluster membership. Control for genetics, environment, and socioeconomics.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is right, geometric configurations should predict which developmental trajectory cluster a person follows, independent of genetics and environment.

Cost: ~$50 million. Timeline: 25 years. Times this study has been funded: 0.

We've spent billions on particle physics. We built the Large Hadron Collider. We sent robots to Mars.

But we've never actually tested whether geometric patterns at birth correlate with neural development trajectories.

Because we're certain they don't.

Based on what? Gravitational force calculations — which, as we've established, measure the wrong thing.

Chapter 9: The Implications We're Avoiding

If It's Real, What Does It Mean?

Let's say — hypothetically — the geometric pattern hypothesis is right. Celestial configurations during critical periods influence neural architecture formation.

What it does not mean:

Your fate is predetermined
Free will doesn't exist
Astrologers can predict your future accurately
Zodiac sun signs determine personality
You should make life decisions based on horoscopes

What it does mean:

Birth timing creates structural templates in the brain
These templates create tendencies, not destinies
You're still making choices within those tendencies
Environment and experience still matter enormously
The mechanism is physical, not mystical

The Piano Tuning Metaphor

You're born with a piano tuned to a specific frequency.

The tuning doesn't determine which songs you'll play, how well you'll play them, whether you'll even play piano, or what you'll accomplish in life.

But it does determine which notes are available, how certain intervals sound together, what's easy vs. difficult to play, and your instrument's characteristic "voice."

Same music, played through different tuning = different experience.

Same life events, processed through different neural architecture = different response patterns.

Why This Scares People

If geometric patterns influence neural development, it means:

We're more connected to the cosmos than we thought. Not mystically — physically. The configuration of matter in the solar system at your birth might genuinely affect the configuration of matter in your developing brain.

Individual differences might have a cosmic component. Not genetic only. Not environmental only. But also geometric — patterns present at the moment of formation.

Timing might matter more than we realized. Not astrology-style "Mercury in retrograde." But developmentally: the pattern present when critical windows open might permanently shape what develops.

We might have missed something fundamental about how reality works. If patterns can influence patterns independent of force, if information can create effects without energy, if geometric relationships at cosmic scales can resonate with patterns at biological scales — then physics might be incomplete in interesting ways.

Not wrong. Not violated. Just incomplete. Like Newton's physics was incomplete until Einstein added relativity — still useful, still correct within its domain, but missing something about how reality works at scales Newton couldn't measure.

Chapter 10: The Pattern at the End of the Tunnel

What We've Learned

Thread 1: Modern Physics Says Reality Is Patterns Particles are stable geometric configurations, not substance. Quantum field theory describes everything as patterns in fields. This is established physics, not speculation.

Thread 2: Developing Brains Are Pattern-Sensitive Critical periods exist where neural architecture is highly plastic. Patterns present during these windows create permanent changes. This is established neuroscience, not speculation.

Thread 3: Geometric Patterns Already Affect Development Photoperiod (sun position) permanently imprints circadian systems. Season of birth affects psychiatric risk. This is established chronobiology, not speculation.

Thread 4: We've Been Measuring the Wrong Thing Testing gravitational force when the mechanism is pattern resonance. Testing conscious chart-reading when the mechanism is developmental imprinting. Testing personality outcomes when the mechanism affects neural architecture.

Thread 5: The Right Measurement Has Never Been Made No study has tested geometric configurations vs. neural development trajectories with second-precision birth timing tracked from birth through critical periods with neural measurements.

The Hypothesis in One Paragraph

Celestial bodies create geometric patterns in space-time. During critical developmental windows, pattern-forming processes in neural development are sensitive to geometric field configurations. These configurations don't determine outcomes but bias probabilistic developmental pathways, creating structural templates — neural architecture patterns — that persist throughout life. The effect is small, operates through pattern resonance rather than force transmission, and shows up in brain wiring rather than personality traits. Traditional astrology intuited something real but misidentified the mechanism and overstated the predictive power.

What This Requires You to Believe

Nothing mystical.

Everything in this hypothesis uses established physics: quantum field theory (patterns as fundamental), developmental neuroscience (critical periods), chronobiology (pattern imprinting), and multi-scale physics (cross-scale coupling).

The only "new" part is suggesting that multi-body geometric patterns might add information beyond the one-body and two-body patterns we already know affect development.

That's it. Not magic. Not mysticism. Not violation of physics.

Just: "Are we sure we've measured all the patterns that matter?"

Chapter 11: The Path Forward

How Science Should Respond

Step 1: Pre-registered Studies. Design experiments before collecting data. Specify exactly what patterns should appear if the hypothesis is true. Make predictions falsifiable and specific.

Step 2: Precision Timing. Develop systems for recording birth times to second precision. This is trivial technology — we just need to make it standard practice.

Step 3: Neural Measurement. Stop using personality tests. Start using EEG, fMRI, and connectome mapping. Measure what the hypothesis actually predicts: neural architecture.

Step 4: Large Samples. Small effects require large samples. Fund studies with N > 10,000. This is expensive — but so is the Large Hadron Collider.

Step 5: Open Science. Make all data public. Let anyone analyze it. Build tools for calculating geometric configurations. Transparent, reproducible, collaborative.

How Skeptics Should Respond

Fair challenges:

"Show me the predicted effect with precise numbers"
"Design an experiment that would falsify this"
"Explain why we should fund this over other research"
"Address alternative explanations systematically"

Unfair dismissals:

"Gravity is too weak" — we've established this measures the wrong thing
"Astrologers can't read charts" — we're not claiming they can
"Time twins aren't identical" — we don't predict they would be
"It's just confirmation bias" — then precision timing shouldn't matter

How Astrologers Should Respond

What's supported: Something real might underlie astrological observations. Pattern recognition across cases might work statistically. Birth timing genuinely might matter.

What's not supported: Specific event prediction, fate determination, 100% accuracy, sun signs alone, or traditional symbolic meanings as literal truth.

The path forward: Work with scientists. Participate in rigorous testing. Accept that the mechanism might be different than traditional teachings. Focus on what's reproducible and testable.

Epilogue: The Radio Tower Revisited

Remember our scientist in 1850?

He calculated that towers don't push hard enough on receivers. He was right about the pushing. He was wrong about the conclusion.

He missed electromagnetic waves.

Not because he was stupid. Not because he was biased. But because he was measuring the wrong thing with the wrong instruments.

Eventually, someone built a better instrument. Maxwell's equations predicted electromagnetic waves. Hertz detected them. Marconi built the first radio. The rest is history.

The 1850 scientist wasn't anti-science. He was doing science correctly with the tools available. He just didn't know there was another category of phenomena his tools couldn't detect.

Are We Making the Same Mistake?

We calculated that planets don't pull hard enough on babies. We're right about the pulling. But are we wrong about the conclusion?

Maybe there's another category of phenomena — pattern resonance, geometric coupling, multi-scale field effects — that our force-measuring instruments can't detect. Not because it's mystical. Not because it violates physics. But because it's a different type of phenomenon operating at different scales through different mechanisms than the ones we've been measuring.

The Uncomfortable Possibility

What if astrology was never about planetary forces?

What if it was always about patterns?

What if the ancients, lacking our mechanical worldview, described in symbolic language something they observed — that birth timing correlates with personality patterns — without understanding the mechanism?

What if they were right about the observation but wrong about the explanation?

What if we threw out the observation because we proved their explanation wrong?

The Question That Remains

Physics says: Reality is fundamentally patterns, not stuff.

Neuroscience says: Developing brains are exquisitely sensitive to patterns.

Chronobiology says: Some geometric patterns (photoperiod) permanently shape brains.

Common sense says: We should check whether other geometric patterns matter.

Science says: We've never properly checked.

So here's the question: Are we sure we've measured all the patterns that matter?

Or are we making the same mistake as the scientist in 1850 — measuring the wrong thing, with the wrong instruments, and declaring the phenomenon impossible?

An Invitation

This hypothesis could be wrong. In fact, it probably is. Most new hypotheses are.

But it's testable. Falsifiable. Grounded in established physics. Makes specific predictions.

It deserves the same thing every hypothesis deserves: a fair test.

Not a gravitational force calculation. Not a test of whether astrologers can read charts. Not a personality study of time twins.

But an actual measurement of whether geometric configurations at birth correlate with neural development trajectories.

The experiment is doable. The technology exists. The methodology is straightforward.

We just need to decide it's worth checking.

Because if we're wrong, we'll prove it conclusively.

And if we're right?

Then reality is stranger, more connected, and more beautiful than we imagined.

And that would be worth knowing.

Postscript: The Pattern You're Reading

You've just read about 8,000 words arguing that patterns matter more than forces, that information trumps energy, that geometry shapes reality in ways we haven't measured.

And you experienced it while reading.

These words created patterns in your visual cortex. Those patterns created semantic networks in your language centers. Those networks created conceptual structures in your prefrontal cortex.

Patterns, influencing patterns, creating meaning.

No force involved. No pushing or pulling. Just information — geometric relationships between symbols — creating new structures in your neural architecture.

You just proved the principle.

Patterns can influence patterns. Information creates structural change. Geometry matters.

Now the question is just: Which patterns matter?

And whether we're brave enough to look.

Additional Resources

The Physics

Quantum field theory and topological patterns
Scale relativity and biological applications
Multi-scale coupling mechanisms

The Neuroscience

Critical periods and neural plasticity
Developmental pattern formation
Oscillatory signatures and brain architecture

The Evidence

Photoperiod imprinting studies
Season-of-birth effects
Carlson test reanalysis (Ertel, 2009)

The Experiments

Proposed study designs
Testable predictions
Falsification criteria

The Implications

Philosophy of causation
Information vs. force
Multi-scale reality

Author's Note: I'm not an astrologer. I don't cast horoscopes. I don't make predictions. I'm a pattern-seeker who noticed that the scientific refutation of astrology might be measuring the wrong thing. This hypothesis could be completely wrong. I hope someone tests it properly so we can find out — because whether it's right or wrong, the answer will teach us something interesting about how reality works.