/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7467766
Premise: Objective quantification of 'aesthetics' for the purpose of 'scalability' in multi-agent (social) contexts.
Structure: The first paragraphs (1) are contextual, go to (2) for a direct answer.
Self-question: Would it be a good idea to sacrifice precision/verbosity in favor of a more fluid reading?

(1)
How can a blind person be told what a color is? Is hard science, driven by constant and strong subjectivities, an impossible chimera? The 'new color' before my eyes 'does not exist' unless it passes through the objectivist and utilitarian filter of society?

Let’s be fair: every discipline in its beginnings was based on strong, censurable intuitions, and the modern, arrogant 'whim' of appealing to objectivist consensus as an end in itself only arises once this intuitive magma has solidified. It is very easy for the modern mathematician, seated in his solid ivory tower —built upon the cries of madmen, by the way—to criticize what is fluid and uncertain. "Clay criticizes fire, sand, and water."

But both extremes are important.

TC is fluid for now, and that is why it is easily censurable unless it crystallizes and proves its usefulness.

Regarding the central premise: the essential factor that differentiates TC from other similar disciplines—such as geometry—is, in fact, aesthetics. Or the human bias of preferring/'rewarding' certain patterns over others. Without aesthetics, there would be no need for further study, as every output would be valid. Aesthetics validates or disapproves (pricrel).

(Here, I had written a spontaneous ontological idea, but I deleted it for straying from the topic.)

[CONTINUES BELOW]