[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Economics is not a science either, but I enjoy analyzing/reading it a lot.

I am surprised when you say this. How is that?

Aren't all quant jobs based on mathematics, algorithms, statistics and modelling? Even Stack exchange lists Economics under Science site?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Aren't all quant jobs based on mathematics, algorithms, statistics and modelling? Even Stack exchange lists Economics under Science site?

Economics falls into what is loosely defined as social science. So it is not really science. It is a collection of observations and best practices of how goods and services are exchanged between people or nations. It doesn't follow any unbreakable laws like science. I have described it further in the economics thread. Check my answer to lurker.

[alpha1]

Let us all understand that belief has very little to do with observations and facts.
We form our beliefs first (usually by copying someone else) and then cherry pick the data confirming our beliefs.

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

I am surprised when you say this. How is that?

Aren't all quant jobs based on mathematics, algorithms, statistics and modelling? Even Stack exchange lists Economics under Science site?

Economics can never be science unless we have a field tested and proven understanding and model of human emotions and mob mentality.

In otherwords, what Samurai says below:

Originally Posted by Samurai

Economics falls into what is loosely defined as social science. So it is not really science. It is a collection of observations and best practices of how goods and services are exchanged between people or nations. It doesn't follow any unbreakable laws like science. I have described it further in the economics thread. Check my answer to lurker.

[Nav-i-gator]

So, I chanced upon the topic of Bhrigu Samhita, supposedly penned by Maharshi Bhrigu, which became the basis of indian Astrology. Basically, he collected birth details of hundreds (and allegedly, thousands) of living humans and documented their basic characteristic sets, build and other minor but easily identifiable features/characters basis their birth charts, position of stars and planets at the time of their birth etc.

He then created a database of sorts (came to be known as Bhrigu Samhita) by preparing all possible permutations/combinations of birth charts and planet positions. It came out to be about 45million such combinations which he categorized into general set of basic characters/features .

I would suppose this would fill the definition of empirical evidence based data modelling and mapping. Although, gathering data on largely subjective aspects for a few hundred people and extrapolating it to millions of possible compositions would not be very accurate (even if we consider actual data capture and interpretation to hold true).

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

It came out to be about 45million such combinations which he categorized into general set of basic characters/features.

Any idea how many could be compiled in a day? The reason I ask is because even at the rate of a 1000 a day, that comes to 123 years which is beyond a normal human lifetime, assuming he did it all by himself.

Or perhaps I misunderstood how it was done. Just curious.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by am1m

Any idea how many could be compiled in a day? The reason I ask is because even at the rate of a 1000 a day, that comes to 123 years which is beyond a normal human lifetime, assuming he did it all by himself.

Or perhaps I misunderstood how it was done. Just curious.

Absolutely no idea. My guess is as accurate as yours on this. What I read was something like this - "45 million different types of birth charts, presumably representing any and every human being that have lived and will live in future". I guess, it is some basic set of rules that can be combined and interpreted in 45 million unique ways to depict each and every human being depending on their birth charts."

Anyway, one interesting story this is, I thought; and hence shared here.

p.s. Chanced upon an interesting mathematical calculation of no of possible unique horoscopes according to astrology:

9 planets and 12 houses. However, Rahu and Ketu are the same axis, so mathematically one can be ascertained from the other and they are not independent objects to be considered in a permutation. So the two of them make one single object and thus there are mathematically 8 entities or objects with which we can make different combinations.

Again, mercury and sun are never more than 20 degrees apart. So let us consider those as one object as well for now and ignore Mercury. We’ll get to the finer arrangement later but for now, let us assume them as one object. So 7 objects as of now.

Now, those 7 objects can be arranged in 12 boxes or houses. Thus, the possible number of combination is: 127which is rougly 36 million.

Now, these combinations of horoscopes will vary depending on the order of planets. If Venus is behind Mercury, the results are different, if Venus is ahead of mercury, the results are different.

So, the 9 planets that we arranged in 12 boxes can be arranged in different orders for every position we calculated. Like, say one of the combination calculated earlier was one planet each from Aries to Libra (Remember we have taken only 7 planets as of now). Now, these one can planet each can also be arranged differently. We can have Sun in Aries, Moon in Taurus, Mars in Gemini and so on. Or we can have Moon in Aries, Sun in Taurus etc. Or we can have Mars in Aries, Moon in Taurus and so on. Which means, all the above combinations can be shuffled and rearranged.

The possible rearrangements are: 7! or 7 factorial which equals 5040.

So the total combinations as of now is (127)∗(7!) which is (36M)∗(5040)

Now, in any sign there are 30 degrees and each of the planet can be in any of those 30 degrees. So the various probable combinations are: (127)∗(7!)∗(307)

30 to the power 7 is approximately 22 billion. So as of now, the number of possible combinations is (36M)∗(5040)∗(22B). Now, remember that we had taken Sun and ignored Mercury because Mercury can be anywhere only in plus or minus 20 degrees from Sun. Which means, there are 40 different possible positions of Mercury for each position of Sun. So now let us put Mercury in our equation.

(36M)∗(5040)∗(22B)∗(40)

Finally, the twelve signs can be become different houses or bhavas depending on the ascendant or lagna. The ascendant is the degree of the rising sign in the eastern horizon at any time. It can be anything from 0 degree Aries to 30 degrees Pisces. Which means, for every given combination calculated above, there are 360 different combinations of Ascendant. Which means, we have as our final equation:

(36M)∗(5040)∗(22B)∗(40)∗(360)

Now, at this point I’ll have to shift to scientific notation to give you an estimate of how many different horoscopes are possible. So we have:

(3.6∗107)∗(5.04∗103)∗(2.2∗(1010))∗40∗360=574801.92 ∗(1020)=5.75∗(105))∗(1020)

=5.75*(10^25)

Which is 575 followed by 23 zeroes.

According to an old study based on a lot of approximation, the total number of humans to have ever been born on earth is 107,602,707,791 or (1.07*10^(11)).

Now, let us calculate what percentage of available horoscope has the human civilization used. This will be given by the simple percentage formula. No. of humans to have ever been used (No. of horoscopes used) divided by total no. of horoscopes.

This is: ((1.07∗(1011))/(5.75∗(1025))∗100=1.8∗(10−13)

Which is 0.00000000000018 %

So basically, each of the people born on the earth will continue to have unique lives and destinies till the time life is possible on earth. Our Sun will burn out much before and life as we know on earth will die before the number of horoscopes available can be exhausted.

Yes of course there are times when people have coincidences, but they’re not because of similar horoscopes but becomes of some common pattern that gets repeated. The entire life is not, will not, and can not be same.

Also, note that I haven’t yet factored in Uranus , Neptune, Pluto and the 60 minutes that make up a degree which are equally important in defining our destinies.

[gkveda]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Anyways, one interesting story this is, I thought; and hence shared here.

Calculation is superb !!

But, only question unanswered is, how to prove the effect of planetary positions on human beings? Is there any evidence ?

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

p.s. Chanced upon an interesting mathematical calculation of no of possible unique horoscopes according to astrology:

This is one of those attempts to sprinkle mathematics on something which is not so that the reader is a bit confused. Although it doesnt look like a good attempt at all.
a) The thing is, the planetary bodies listed do not move instantaneously nor at the same speed. Saturn takes about 29 years to complete the zodiac belt, or to move thru the 12 partitions or cells. Which means for about 2.5 years it is going to remain there in a single cell. Which also means the unique horoscope change induced by a Saturn permutation is possible to occur only once in 2.5 years.
It is the same case with all planetary bodies used here.
The permutation and combination formula used here is not valid for planetary bodies because they are all not moving at the same rate.

b) Rahu and Ketu are not astronomically proved and at best they are mythology. The author of this description apparently did try to set these aside, but not with any reasoning.

c) Pluto in the list of planets, so this is quite an older explanation.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

This is one of those attempts to sprinkle mathematics on something which is not so that the reader is a bit confused. Although it doesnt look like a good attempt at all.
a) The thing is, the planetary bodies listed do not move instantaneously nor at the same speed. Saturn takes about 29 years to complete the zodiac belt, or to move thru the 12 partitions or cells. Which means for about 2.5 years it is going to remain there in a single cell. Which also means the unique horoscope change induced by a Saturn permutation is possible to occur only once in 2.5 years.
It is the same case with all planetary bodies used here.
The permutation and combination formula used here is not valid for planetary bodies because they are all not moving at the same rate.

b) Rahu and Ketu are not astronomically proved and at best they are mythology. The author of this description apparently did try to set these aside, but not with any reasoning.

c) Pluto in the list of planets, so this is quite an older explanation.

Sir, the calculation is about the no of all possible combinations that can be, depending on where planets can be in the chart at the time of birth. It does not depend on the time taken for each "planet" to move through the chart.

As for 2nd and 3rd points - these are just names and classifications (you forgot to mention that Sun is not a planet too). We can call a celestial body anything. I think the calculation of no of possible birth chart types is fairly correct (apart from that, it doesn't prove anything).

And by the way, mathematics can be "sprinkled" on anything - it's a language.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Sir, the calculation is about the no of all possible combinations that can be, depending on where planets can be in the chart at the time of birth. It does not depend on the time taken for each "planet" to move through the chart.

As for 2nd and 3rd points - these are just names and classifications (you forgot to mention that Sun is not a planet too). We can call a celestial body anything. I think the calculation of no of possible birth chart types is fairly correct (apart from that, it doesn't prove anything).

And by the way, mathematics can be "sprinkled" on anything - it's a language.

It doesnt depend on the time because if it considered that too, these numbers cannot be derived. The text seemed to bring in permutation to prove the unique nature of planetary positions, which is one of the main points in debunking astrology. Planetary position based permutation may derive X billion unique planetary positions, but this does not directly connect to number of people/births. Because the planetary position stays the same for extended time. This text is directly equating the planetary permutation number to the number of people ever to prove unique horoscope is possible. I just called out that part.

Rahu and Ketu not being astronomically proven is what I pointed out in point 2 and 3. It is not similar to the nomenclature of "griha" used in astrology for Sun and Moon. The synonyms for planets used in Astrology text just means celestial bodies and Sun and Moon are counted in there. So are the planets and Rahu and Ketu. Except that there is no astronomical proof for existence of a celestial body for these two mythological objects.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

It doesnt depend on the time because if it considered that too, these numbers cannot be derived. The text seemed to bring in permutation to prove the unique nature of planetary positions, which is one of the main points in debunking astrology. Planetary position based permutation may derive X billion unique planetary positions, but this does not directly connect to number of people/births. Because the planetary position stays the same for extended time. This text is directly equating the planetary permutation number to the number of people ever to prove unique horoscope is possible. I just called out that part.

Rahu and Ketu not being astronomically proven is what I pointed out in point 2 and 3. It is not similar to the nomenclature of "griha" used in astrology for Sun and Moon. The synonyms for planets used in Astrology text just means celestial bodies and Sun and Moon are counted in there. So are the planets and Rahu and Ketu. Except that there is no astronomical proof for existence of a celestial body for these two mythological objects.

Astronomically, Rahu and Ketu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere (called North and South Lunar nodes respectively).

Rest all I Agree. I mentioned the calculations as I found it interesting - and fairly accurate mathematically (though we may debate on the assumptions - as you are saying).

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Astronomically, Rahu and Ketu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere (called North and South Lunar nodes respectively).

Rest all I Agree. I mentioned the calculations as I found it interesting - and fairly accurate mathematically (though we may debate on the assumptions - as you are saying).

There is no celestial body although all the texts related to astrology consider them as one. At best it is an optical illusion. With the telescope, it is clear that it is just a story and no celestial body. Though Rahu and Ketu are very much in the central premise of Indian astrology.

The mathematics is accurate, but it does not fit in to prove unique planetary positions can be correlated to humans. Thank you for agreeing.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

There is no celestial body although all the texts related to astrology consider them as one. At best it is an optical illusion. With the telescope, it is clear that it is just a story and no celestial body. Though Rahu and Ketu are very much in the central premise of Indian astrology.

The mathematics is accurate, but it does not fit in to prove unique planetary positions can be correlated to humans. Thank you for agreeing.

Optical Illusion? Consider that the Astrological observations were made and documented thousands of years in the past and (related stories where each celestial body was considered to be a Demigod notwithstanding) still holds reasonably accurate to astronomical observations.

For example, As per Vedic astrology Rahu and Ketu have an orbital cycle of 18 years and are always 180 degrees from each other orbitally (as well as in the birth charts). - THis is thousands years old.

Astronomically, the orbital plane of the Moon precesses in space, the lunar nodes also precess around the ecliptic, completing one revolution (called a draconic or nodal period) in 18.612958 years (6,798.383 days). The same cycle measured against an inertial frame of reference, such as International Celestial Reference System (ICRS), a coordinate system relative to the fixed stars), is 18.599525 years.

Pretty accurate!

Where I agree (and have been saying in earlier posts) is the interpretation part as effects on humans of these celestial phenomena/planets/bodies - That is highly subjective and unproven from science point of view.

[ashokrajagopal]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Optical Illusion? Consider that the Astrological observations were made and documented thousands of years in the past and (related stories where each celestial body was considered to be a Demigod notwithstanding) still holds reasonably accurate to astronomical observations.

For example, As per Vedic astrology Rahu and Ketu have an orbital cycle of 18 years and are always 180 degrees from each other orbitally (as well as in the birth charts). - THis is thousands years old.

Astronomically, the orbital plane of the Moon precesses in space, the lunar nodes also precess around the ecliptic, completing one revolution (called a draconic or nodal period) in 18.612958 years (6,798.383 days). The same cycle measured against an inertial frame of reference, such as International Celestial Reference System (ICRS), a coordinate system relative to the fixed stars), is 18.599525 years.

Pretty accurate!

Where I agree (and have been saying in earlier posts) is the interpretation part as effects on humans of these celestial phenomena/planets/bodies - That is highly subjective and unproven from science point of view.

Rahu and Ketu have been explained as nodes/points etc these days, but these are arbitrary and nonexistent -- they are points in space. They are not celestial bodies to begin with. ie. Rahu and Ketu were wrong even before the Demi god angle came in.

The rest of the celestial bodies are "physical" bodies proven astronomically. And Rahu and Ketu imaginary points like other imaginary reference objects like "orbit" or "ecliptic". Which is not how the astrology texts say. The astrology texts use Rahu and Ketu as celestial bodies for all purposes and they are later proven to be just imaginary points. To the astrology texts' authors they seemed like another celestial body(optical illusion) and the stories started from there.

And Rahu and Ketu based calculations would certainly be accurate (nothing spectacular in this) because they are referenced from Sun and Moon. We could always observe Sun, Moon and of course Earth with naked eyes clearly so the calculations around those are pretty accurate.

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

Rahu and Ketu have been explained as nodes/points etc these days, but these are arbitrary and nonexistent -- they are points in space. They are not celestial bodies to begin with. ie. Rahu and Ketu were wrong even before the Demi god angle came in.

The rest of the celestial bodies are "physical" bodies proven astronomically. And Rahu and Ketu imaginary points like other imaginary reference objects like "orbit" or "ecliptic". Which is not how the astrology texts say. The astrology texts use Rahu and Ketu as celestial bodies for all purposes and they are later proven to be just imaginary points. To the astrology texts' authors they seemed like another celestial body(optical illusion) and the stories started from there.

And Rahu and Ketu based calculations would certainly be accurate (nothing spectacular in this) because they are referenced from Sun and Moon. We could always observe Sun, Moon and of course Earth with naked eyes clearly so the calculations around those are pretty accurate.

Much like the "Hypothetical" Graviton in Quantum physics? It is not unusual in modern science as well, to assume some constants, particles, even energy and matter that has yet to be discovered, but hypothesized basis assumed characteristics that fit the field equations (and once discovered, it might "prove" be very different from what has been hypothesized; or might even prove to be false!).

As for calculations referenced to sun and moon (and their ecliptic relative to the galactic centre): Try to look at the stars and calculate it yourself with naked eyes and let me know if you can. With all the scientific knowledge we possess today, it is still nigh impossible to decipher relative orbital eccentricities, orbital planes and intersections of different celestial bodies with naked eye observations.