Theory of Everything - View Single Post

Guille · **About your point on beauty -** 10-20-2005, 10:19 AM

Greg,

You have given an important point in remembering us that beauty is subjective. But this leads to several philsophical problems. First, we must define beauty. Beauty is symetry, order, proportionality, equallity, pleasurable to be consciouss about, and, most importantly (for our particular discussion), it is a concept. And as I described in the thread "The incompleteness theorem", concepts can not be shared by two different minds because the fact that they are different minds impplies that they are subjective, and thus, that they don't have the same information for none of their components or fields. So, this is why each of us have our preferences on people for their physical properties. But the physical property of beauty is an independent entity from each mind. When something is beautifull it is beautifull. Of course, each mind has preferences, and might not say it's beautifull. For example, for a mathematician, euler's identity e^iπ+1=0, is beautifull, and the new "armani collection" for fall/winter 2005/2006 is just a lot of clothes. And, for an stylist, it would be vice versa. Who is correct? None and both. Both are beautifull, the equations and the clothes. This is because independently of human minds, they havethe properties requiered for beauty previouslly described.

	(#9 (permalink))
Guille The Thinker Status: Offline Posts: 3,278 Thanks Given: 14 Thanked 9x in 9 Posts Join Date: Mar 2005 Rep Power: 48	About your point on beauty - 10-20-2005, 10:19 AM Greg, You have given an important point in remembering us that beauty is subjective. But this leads to several philsophical problems. First, we must define beauty. Beauty is symetry, order, proportionality, equallity, pleasurable to be consciouss about, and, most importantly (for our particular discussion), it is a concept. And as I described in the thread "The incompleteness theorem", concepts can not be shared by two different minds because the fact that they are different minds impplies that they are subjective, and thus, that they don't have the same information for none of their components or fields. So, this is why each of us have our preferences on people for their physical properties. But the physical property of beauty is an independent entity from each mind. When something is beautifull it is beautifull. Of course, each mind has preferences, and might not say it's beautifull. For example, for a mathematician, euler's identity e^iπ+1=0, is beautifull, and the new "armani collection" for fall/winter 2005/2006 is just a lot of clothes. And, for an stylist, it would be vice versa. Who is correct? None and both. Both are beautifull, the equations and the clothes. This is because independently of human minds, they havethe properties requiered for beauty previouslly described.