Objective Beauty Exists

I am quite glad the majority of your argument was simply copying and pasting mine. Hopefully on second reading, the audience with further see the flaws and problems that denigrate your case for objective beauty. Judging from the comments posted, and from my own personal opinion, this is your big problem: "I chose Mozart not because he was the "best", but because he demonstrates these qualities best." Look, this is a subjective statement. Even if "elegance, perfection, and symmetry" were most present in the works of Mozart, there is no objective way of measuring them. They are abstractions, and of course you could find something like elegance in his music, but that doesn't make it the most elegant or the most mathematical. You have failed to provide a system for measuring beauty based off of mathematics, and you have failed to prove why beauty is derived from mathematics. You expected everyone here to agree with that premise, but now we're all seeing how absurd it is. Until you can point to why mathematics makes Mozart beautiful, then you cannot tell me that it is. You are stuck on this weird pseudo-scientific bend, and it ruined your argument. Again, with the physics and math garbage. The way I see it, you're basically telling everyone here that there is a purple Gypsie unicorn named "Mathematics and Physics" who goes around and kisses what she thinks is pretty, and that makes it have beauty. UNTIL YOU PROVIDE A SYSTEM BY WHICH BEAUTY IS RECOGNIZED IN THE MIND, THE ARGUMENT IS VOID. " The quality of my sources should be relevant to the readers of this debate as we are judged by our sources. I'm unsure what would impress you, but again it isn't important to me or the debate." Firstly, I don't consider your constant citing of google to be a quality source. Secondly, name dropping will get you nowhere in this business. Einstein is just a guy who has no more authority on beauty than anyone else. "This is pretty much a lot of nonsense, speculation, and irrelevance. It doesn't really address the argument well." It is not speculation (read "A guide to musical temperament" by Thomas Donahue). What it means is that the music we hear and consider beautiful was composed using a different system, where the intervals between the notes was different. For somebody that is so obsessed with symmetry and physics and all, I find it troubling that you do not see how a different tuning system would change the mathematical equations and ratios, and thus our perspective on beauty. Quite honestly, your argument for objective beauty was laid on a creaky foundation that presumed that mathematics are in everything. But even thoughts and emotions can be considered beautiful, but you cannot prove falling in love in a physics equation, or democracy in a mathematical theorem. I find things like that beautiful, but only because they are beautiful in my eyes. If a reverence for the physical sciences is what informs your appreciation for music or art, more power to you. But it is simply ill-informed and egocentric to think that is the RIGHT way of listening. Beauty is the result of many factors, including but not limited to, experience, preference, yes, mathematics and physics, culture, state of mind, and familiarity. Thank you for this debate. Vote CONsidering the previous arguments, and not based upon who either of us tell you to vote for. Thanks for reading.