LogFAQs > #970729176

For a very simple and broad example from the math side (I don't know enough on the physics side to speak to specifics, just that I know that such things exist) there are a ton of theorems that apply to only the set of Real Numbers. Because you can generate a counter-example to the theorem by using numbers from a different set doesn't invalidate the truth of the statement among the original set.

For example if we consider pretentious art history graduates who are desperately seeking a practical application of their degree and choose to use it to try and validate liking objectively ugly video games in internet arguments to be a subset of the imaginary numbers the theorem would still be considered true among the set of real numbers (the 99%+ of people who think the game that didn't put any resources or talent into visual design is rightfully ugly)

Like listen I'm not saying every game I think looks good is objectively beautiful or that every game I think looks bad is objectively ugly. But there are certain standards with respect to art that when not followed tend to invoke a feeling of revulsion towards the uninformed viewer. This is true of like pretty much every art form out there. In music, you could play a piece with a bunch of untuned instruments that randomly insert a different note in place of the intended one every bar and that would be an analogue to an ugly video game. Most people would call that a cacophony but I'm sure some people would find that a daring piece to play and laud what it's doing. That doesn't mean you can't say it's objectively bad-- it just means that in spite of that some people will like it. Which you know, if you're secure in your tastes you should be completely okay with liking something that's objectively bad.