>>10654350It is science, have you ever taken an IQ test, many of them are full of shapes that vary with time according to some underlying rule that one can discover if one makes the right hypotheses and experiments in different controlled environments (by trying it out with different aspects of the entries of the matrix, like say the triangles or the yellow shapes or the shapes on the top or the shapes on the right etc. etc.) some of the IQ problems require revolutionary unifying ideas of the set of observations that one makes. Many of these rules lead to various emergent properties like different kinds of symmetry, group transformations and other aspects of abstract algebra much like it happens with theoretical physics and in addition some of those rules are repeated so that one has to also think about the parsimony of the mechanisms. IQ tests however have some of the greatest density of intellect used per effort unlike in science where collecting data takes time and most avenues of exploration are not succesful. However, there is much more unification in science than IQ tests such that it is more beautiful to find some transcendental fact in science than in an IQ test though one could expect that if someone made a large IQ test that was exceptionally unified, then one would be able to rapidly harvest beauty unlike in science though perhaps not as influential as it would be with science since science has a larger scope though if one goes meta with IQ tests (as in thinking about epistemology) then there wouldn't be much of a difference in that respect
