I mean there is repetition of patterns on different planes. Astrology works, no matter how much scorn that idea produces in those that haven’t studied it… or who has looked through some descriptions of sun and rising signs. Someone with a Jupiter-Pluto conjunction will be able to tap into serious world-powers, a Neptune Moon opposition will make for great psychic vulnerability, etc…more clearly, someone with all their planets on one hemisphere will be a simpler person than one with everything spread out… (oppositions produce greater consciousness, virtually all great philosophers have oppositions, where popular stars quite generally have planets concentrated in a few adjacent signs, most often between Virgo and Capricorn) people with dominant libras and in general western Hemisphere placements will be more well known than people with dominant aries/eastern placements (which is statistically provable using astro databases just by the distribution of Aries through libra through Aries in the celebrity entries, it progresses smoothly from fewest in Aries to most in libra to fewest in Aries), great changes and shift are guaranteed during progression transits (Sauwelios, when I showed him the transits of his progressed moon, literally said he didnt like it (astrology) anymore as it was too accurate), predictable to the day, or the hour, but clearly none of that is the physical influence of the planets. So I attribute it to patterns, where the planets can be seen to correspond to archetypes/elements in the human. Im aware this isnt any sort of explanation, by the way. Just an indication of where I would look for an explanation.
By the way when I was explaining some stuff about his aspects, Sauwelios said that a model becomes less useful as it approaches the complexity of what it models. But astrology isnt a model, but a description of a parallel phenomenon, which in complexity does indeed match the phenomenon it parallels. How could the cosmos be merely a simplifying model? incredible one would be even able to think that. Anyway, selecting in terms of usefulness rather than truth is not how I practice philosophy or science.