… but it means that our today’s explanation of reality is based on principles that are inconsistent with the rational principles of logic.
With the development of the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein and, even more, with their interpretation of the findings of quantum physics (“Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics“) the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg have opened the portals of natural sciences for principles that reside far beyond ratio and strict logic. Many of the arguments that were brought forward against the art of astrology at the dawn of Modern Age in the 16th century and later during the Age of Enlightenment could well be raised again today, this time against commonly approved principles of quantum physics: It is more than doubtful whether these scientifically approved principles of quantum mechanics are compatible with the standards that Aristotle in ancient Greek times and Francis Bacon at the beginning of Modern Age have set up in order to establish a scientific method based on ratio and logic.
It was the overall ideational intention during the Age of Enlightenment to free the human mind from mythical ideas and superstition. The Ambassadors of Enlightenment wished to have natural sciences prosper out of nothing but pure reason. This was a long and profound process that continued for about 200 years. Then, in the end, during the second half of the 19th century, science at last proclaimed victory of reasonable mind over physical matter: Physicists were convinced of being in a position to be able to find the physical laws that governed life. They claimed that – provided all relevant factors were known – any and all events in reality could be mathematically calculated. Thus, the world was “deprived of magic“ (Max Weber). The archaic mythical explanations of nature and the world seemed to have been banished from scientific discourse. Yet very soon, certain inconsistencies surfaced on the alleged unified and closed system of natural sciences. It was in order to overcome these inconsistencies that Albert Einstein developed his theory of relativity. With the recognition of relativity as a scientific principle, the definition of our reality in terms of physics as well as our ideational conception of the world have again become open to new considerations. When it comes to the description of the world at large, i.e. cosmology in terms of Einstein’s theory of relativity, as well as to the description of the subatomic reality of quantum mechanics according to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is to be noted that scientifically approved theories today are not in line anymore with the principles that were established at the dawn of Modern Age in the 16th and 17th century in order to overcome the ideas of the myths of old, and of superstition. Simply because these scientifically approved principles cannot be explained by applying mere ratio and classic Aristotelian logic.
Insofar as the theorems of mathematics are referring to reality,
they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
The question whether astrology can be subjected to scientific consideration may actually be disputable. It is however not to be disputed that since Einstein has developed his theory of relativity and since Bohr and Heisenberg have formulated the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, similar doubts may be raised with respect to natural sciences, and especially with respect to physics, the most fundamental of all natural sciences. As is known, in quantum mechanics things do happen that are not in line with strict logic and would therefore be hair-raising not only to the frontrunners of the Age of Enlightenment but, in going further back in time, also to Aristotle, the prime representative of logic. Aristotle probably would have had quite a hard time figuring out how to cover the dual nature of the phenomenon of light (the so-called particle/wave dualism) when formulating his famous laws of logic: the principle tertium non datur (= no third (possibility) is given, also known as the “law of excluded middle”) is simply not applicable anymore in terms of modern natural sciences. A third possibility is indeed existent, at least when it comes to the phenomenon of light.
While it is true that astrology has nothing to do with quantum mechanics – especially not as far as its way of functioning and mode of bringing its effects into working is concerned – it can definitely be stated that astrology has got a lot do with the “excluded middle” that Aristotle by any means intended to ban from existence. As is common knowledge in eastern philosophy, the polarity of life that we perceive in three-dimensional reality – is an illusion. Behind the veil of our visible outer reality something does exist that is far beyond the realm of logic and reason.
The world is more than what is actually the case.
It is also everything that could be the case.
 In the 1920ies, it had become clear that what happened on subatomic levels of matter was not compatible with the laws of traditional physics. In order to cope with this situation, the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg revolutionized the epistemological basis of traditional physics. They created a somewhat new kind of definition of what is possible within scientific terms of describing the nature of physical events. Thus, the newly collected data with respect to subatomic levels – though being not in conformity with strict logic – could fit into the epistemological philosophy supporting natural sciences. As a unified scientific statement, their common contributions to this, Bohr’s idea of “complementarity” when it comes to defining the nature of reality, and Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” are known as the “Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics”.
 For further information on this see for example Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe. Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory”, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1999.