There is no way to refute nonsense.However, it is sufficient to prove that this is nonsense. This is far more catastrophic than the verdict that the statements are “just wrong.” You can learn from the wrong, you learn nothing from nonsense. Thus, any false statement, however false, is a hundred times more valuable than a hundred nonsensical statements that contribute nothing to our knowledge. Another word for nonsense is “critical.” False statements can be criticised and possibly refuted, in the case of nonsense this is not possible, one cannot do anything with a nonsensical statement.
The claim that there is a synchronicity between stars and fate because the universe is deterministic is pointless.Then there is also a synchronicity between my life and the constellation of clouds in the sky, or the distribution of atoms in a ballpoint pen at birth time or any other time. Because all of this would be determined. But just because two events are both determined, it doesn’t follow that they run “synchronously” in any way. Then all events would be in sync at all times, and thus the concept of synchronicity no longer makes sense. It would only be synonymous with “determinism”.
Normally, when we call two events synchronous, we assume that there is a causal connection between the two.I can synchronize two clocks by set both at the same time. Because clocks are built to measure a constant flow of time, both run synchronously within their accuracy. Over time, the synchronization is lost, because never two clocks run exactly the same. But the moment I set both clocks, there is a causal link between the two: me. Without this causal link, the fact that two clocks display exactly the same time at a given time is called coincidence: the random (unpredictable, undetermined) meeting of two non-causally connected Events. Whether the universe is deterministic or not plays no role at all.
But there is no mechanism that establishes a causal link between stellar constellations and fate – that is why this would be called coincidence, not synchronicity.
Each causal connection between two events presupposes that energy is transferred between the two – always in both directions (interaction).It is transmitted by stars light, but our eyes or telescopes interact or interact. interact with the emitted light, not with the star itself.
The question would be what could be learned from the alleged synchronicity?nothing. In order for the statement not to be immune to criticism, it should be possible to show which possible facts that can be found wrong if the fact exists. In science, this is called falsifibility, and statements that cannot be refuted are pure nonsense.
What can be refuted about astrology are meaningful statements that it makes.This includes, for example, prophecies, unless they are too vague. Predictions are useful if the event can or may not occur, because if it does not occur, the prediction is incorrect. But vague prophecies such as “next year there will be an earthquake” prove pointless – because as far as we know there hasn’t been a year without an earthquake, so it’s highly likely that one will happen next year. To know this, however, you don’t need astrology, so it’s superfluous. It is not important that some select predictions are made, because that will always be the case. It would be to be shown that this happens more often than statistically expected. Since this proof has not yet been successful, astrology is refuted, which makes predictions.