In her book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2020), German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder argues: “Physicists believe that the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones.” According to her, this is the reason for which “we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades. […] The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity […] Physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth.”

Can this be happening in the field of astrology as well? In the eternal debates about the different methods of house division, take, for example, sign houses (first century BCE) and/or time-based quadrant houses of Alcabitius (tenth century CE). In the first case, all houses are — perfectly so — the same size because we employ the ecliptic or zodiacal belt (space) only. Because there are not two frames of reference superpositioned, one tilted relative to the other, neither time dilation nor length contraction, two closely related phenomena common to thorough astrographic measurement (see Holden, 1977, pp. 30-37), can be observed; although the cause is different from the conventionally recognised ones (velocity, or special theory of relativity, and gravity, or general theory of relativity). This makes the chart look entirely proportional.

Unlike the first case, in the second (Alcabitius) we employ two frames of reference, namely, the ecliptic (space, revolution, right ascension) and the horizon of the observer (time, rotation, declination). Because of this, both time dilation (regarding the segments of the ecliptic, otherwise known as signs, and each of their degrees) and length contraction (regarding the astrographical regions, otherwise known as houses) will be observed. The Alcabitius calculation, however, will divide the amount of time the oblique ascending degree would have invested in traveling from the horizon to the midheaven (half of the diurnal arc) into three equal parts in order to determine the two intermediate house cusps (first and second sixths of the diurnal arc), as opposed to recognising the speeds or times of oblique ascension of these two cuspal degrees as well, differentiated, as the times of the two abovementioned degrees are too different from that of the ascending and midheaven degrees.

However, because it ignores said speeds (i.e. ascensional times), all three houses of each quadrant will appear to have the same time length, not unequal lengths (see what is known as proper time) pursuant to the speed or time of oblique ascension of each of the degrees at the latitude wherein the chart was erected.

This last measurement modality (differentiated) would imply, perhaps, a not symmetrical measurement of the houses, but the Alcabitius measurement, although “symmetrical”, cannot reflect reality, whereas the nuanced measurement described would, naturally. Due to the fact that it is more complex mathematically (although more thorough, rigorous, or exhaustive, as we have to measured the time of ascension of other degrees beyond that of the ASC and the MC), many Alcabitius proponents have discard it, appealing to a similar reasoning to that of the one employed for sign houses (although it is not the only argument): its lack of symmetry; or lack of love for the ascending degree, others would argue, but it so happens that this is not the only degree between the ASC and the MC, not to mention that both the ascending and the culminating degrees reflect their oblique ascensional times. Why not have the same respect for the rest?

Might we have understood the concept of symmetry in the wrong way, then? Is it possible that we are to speak of symmetry only when a — time-and-again confirmed physical — principle is applied unconditionally and/or uninterruptedly during all observations? In this case, Placidus houses (relative houses), not Alcabitius houses (absolute houses), would prove to show the houses most symmetrical of any astrograph (because it is a complete measurement, or exhaustive), while Alcabitius could be considered to be an incomplete measurement (although particularly helpful without software technology or enough time in our hands).

Symmetries are not what humans wish to make of them, but what nature has made of them. We therefore agree with Sabine from an astrological, not just the current state of quantum physics (which is stagnating), standpoint as well: “An [egocentric] belief in beauty has become so dogmatic [blindly standard] that it now conflicts with […] objectivity.”

____________

For a more detailed explanation of the Placidus method of measuring houses, as well as that of Alcabitius, see Time dilation according to Tropical Astrology and Why the Placidus Measurement of Astrographic Regions is Compatible with Relativity Theory.