This is interesting.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would call prefering a diverse and complex system over a simple system more than "human aesthetics".

Possibly. But nature harbors systems as sparse as the Sahara and as complex as the rain forests of Brazil. I think preferring one to the other is precisely a matter of aesthetics.

It apears that through evolution all systems work away from a simple system toward a complex one. I would suppose that the "human aesthetics" are a response to the nature of the systems we evolved in.

I think evolution finds a "balance" at at a fairly high level of complexity.
I have never seen research on it but I suppose that while systems would be always changing with evolution, left with out "intelligent" intervention there is probably a nautural limit of complexity that systems would converge too. It would probably be limited mostly by the initial energy and a sink.
[right][snapback]86515[/snapback][/right]

A lot of truth there, but mostly off topic, I think. In spite of some indicators that some evolution can take place in a short time (a few tens of generations of the critter evolving), most evolutions do not change the balance substantially. Over a period of time that an ecosystem could be said to exist, evolution is probably not a (major) factor. In the long term, climatic drift, evolution, and plate tectonics are probably the main drivers of change.

--Pete