There isn't math behind aesthetics, there is graph behind asthetics. The graph is a popularity contest among experiences stored in memory under an extreme compression regimen. Memory doesn't do math any more than an actual entropy evolved landscape does math. Evolved landscapes can be formalized within a mathematical abstraction. But that in no way means that they do math or did math on their way to taking on their current morphology. This territory/map distinction is important. We are pattern machines, abstraction engines, and we so often attempt to overlay this tendency and agency onto systems that are in fact not abstractions. That tendancy is a big component of the subjective noise science is meant to filter away. Scientists see this noise and dump it. Geeks revel in this internal noise in the exact same way that mystics and philosophers revel in it. If you are a map maker, and we are map makers, seeing the difference between what works in a map and what causes the territory being mapped requires unrelenting vigilance. Are you a scientist or a science ephemera collector?