"It seems to me that one could devise various tests for coherence (e.g. smoothness of some class of topological transformations), or, hey some behavior makes sense in some evolutionary context. So, in this sense the coherence is testable, and may even be said to posses a certain artistic, religious or mathematical beauty, even if that doesn't move the science along."
If a theory provides a rich foundation for more theory, it is likely to be some sort of formal system. At that point it should just be called math or computer science and stand on the utility it provides to workers in those fields. It should not presume to relate to the physical (or social or economic) world unless it makes predictions about it. Artistic beauty is subjective, and artists (and comedians) know that. It has to resonate and get at something. If it `works' if it (positively) tests a hypothesis about some aspect or subset of the human experience. Perhaps if there is religious beauty it might look something like legal beauty. Some system of constraints that when enforced avoid social unrest. With the former, though, there's the small matter of having to drink the kool-aide. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
