Imaginary numbers are a pure product of the mind, literally not existing

Imaginary numbers are physically real.
Real numbers are physically imaginary.

If you haven't grasped this yet you don't understand anything.

THIS IS NOW A MASS RED PILLING THREAD.
ANY POST BELOW MINE NOT CONTAINING A RED PILL WILL BE BANNED.

>being this much of a set theorist
disgusting

Yes, you do. You only move one way thru time whereas you can go both ways in the other dimensions, but that's the only difference.

All numbers are physically real, they exist as patterns in physical brains, or on the pages of a book, or of photons on a screen.

Those aren't numbers, just representations of numbers. Numbers are just intellectual constructs. Only Platonists would disagree.

Properly no numbers are physically real, when I said imaginary numbers are real I only meant in the sense they are useful to model real phenomena, which irrationals are useless for.

>Numbers are just intellectual constructs.

Ie, patterns in the brain.

>Those aren't numbers, just representations of numbers

There are no "numbers", only representations of numbers.

>Properly no numbers are physically real

They cannot be anything but physically real. A number that has no physically real representation doesn't exist at all.

>>Numbers are a pure product of the mind, literally not existing
>>They happen to perfectly describe dozens of physical phenomenons
FTFY

They also describe an infinite number of physically impossible phenomena. Numbers are a language, they have no inherent truth values. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

>Ie, patterns in the brain.
That's a representation of a number, not a number.

>There are no "numbers", only representations of numbers.
That's what I'm saying.

>They cannot be anything but physically real.
How can they be physically real? Show me a pi! Show me an e! Not a representation, the real thing!

>A number that has no physically real representation doesn't exist at all.
Now this is further incorrect. Pi and e don't have physically real representations, but they certainly exist as intellectual constructs. They just don't exist physically.

>Show me a pi! Not a representation, the real thing!

But you just agreed with me that there are no "real" numbers, only representations of them. Are you simple?

>Now this is further incorrect. Pi and e don't have physically real representations, but they certainly exist as intellectual constructs.

Intellectual constructs ARE PHYSICAL. What do you think the brain is?

>But you just agreed with me that there are no "real" numbers, only representations of them. Are you simple?
>not understanding basic rhetoric
Are you a child? The entire point of my argument is that you cannot produce an example of an "e" or a "pi." Because they're not physically real.

>Intellectual constructs ARE PHYSICAL. What do you think the brain is?
A certain pattern of neurons exciting is not "e" or "pi," just a representation of such.

>A certain pattern of neurons exciting is not "e" or "pi," just a representation of such.

There is no "e" or "pi", they exist ONLY as representations (in matter) and as ratios or abstractions (ie, as patterns in the brain).

FUCK OFF! Your red pills are weak and mildly gay.

Anyway, most people aren't in science to get rich, it's for the prestige. They grew up believing that science is the most important thing, the one thing that truly advances humanity, and that scientists are the best people. Not being able to be called a scientist is like death to them. They'll do work they're not interested in, that doesn't seem to be any good, for low pay, with no prospect of advancement, just to be able to say they're professional scientists and to be friends with the other professional scientists. They know that an oversupply of people like them are being raised constantly by the educational system, and there's no way back in anymore if you ever stray from the path or get cast out.

They are extremely sensitive to the prospect of losing their place. They'll commit horrible ethical violations to avoid it.

Beyond that, they have an emotional need to believe in their field, to the point that they'll turn their eyes away from evidence that it has gone rotten, rationalize it away.

GET ON MY LEVEL BITCHES

>HURR HOW DARE YOU DISCUSS ON TOPIC!
>DURR IMMA GONNA SHITPOST AND DERAIL THIS THREAD, FUCK U FOR NOT DOING SO!
>HURR
>DURRR
>*drools*

That's nice, retard.

Let me sum up my position:
1. Numbers exist as ideas, abstractly.
2. Numbers, as ideas, are represented in the brain.
3. Numbers do not exist physically.

As near as I can tell, you agree with 1 and 2 but not 3. Am I correct?

found the brainlet

Correct, because abstract ideas don't float around in the aether, they exist only as patterns in brains and books and harddrives. Ideas are physical, they propagate physically, and if ever there comes a time when there is NO physical representation of an idea anywhere, then that idea no longer exists at all, ie, it has been "forgotten".

I maintain that there is a distinction between the representation of a thing and the thing itself. While you may draw a dragon on paper, the dragon itself doesn't exist physically, only the representation of the dragon. Similarly, while you may conceive of a number in your brain, the number doesn't physically exist, only the representation of the number.

>I maintain that there is a distinction between the representation of a thing and the thing itself.

I agree, but that only applies to things that exist independent of humans (or that could do so, such as dragons). There is no "thing-in-itself" for something like a language, they exist ONLY as representations and ideas.

While I think a concept like a language isn't equivalent to any given representation of a language (a dictionary can't adequately capture the idea of spoken English, for example,) you might be right that the abstract idea does depend on some physical representation to meaningfully exist.

Imaginary numbers dont exist exactly as much as counting numbers dont exist.

>he doesnt understand relativity

>meaningfully exist

As opposed to figuratively existing? I've never heard a convincing argument that something like a language, or an idea, or a number, can exist in any way whatsoever except as a physical representation. I'm not even sure what it would mean for something to exist "non-physically".

wow good post. really opened my eyes.

>phenomenons

I think you're probably right that the abstract idea cannot exist without some physical representation.

I still maintain there is a difference between the idea and its representation. The abstract idea itself may not be exhaustively described by the representation. I may come up with new English-isms that are certainly English but did not prior to this appear in any representation of the English language. Lewis Carroll did exactly this, actually. If "English" at that point was just the set of all representations of "English" up to that point (spoken, remembered, and in literature), then Carroll's new words would not have been recognizable as English, as they were. Therefore, the representations of English up to that point were not enough to exhaustively describe what English was. The idea of English went beyond any finite representations of English.

bump

The rules of English allow for the creation of novel sentences, and the more general rules of language allow for yet more novel neologisms and constructions, but does this mean that the infinite possibilities inherent in the rules somehow "exist" separate from actual utterances? I'm not sure what sense it would make to say "yes". I share your intuition that the representation of an idea is in some way different from the "thing-in-itself" of the idea, but I'm not convinced this is an actual difference and not just a product of how my brain works. Certainly, I can't imagine a new word without "creating" that word in my brain, even tho I know in the abstract that I could come up with an endless stream of wholly novel words, were I to attempt to do so. But before I think the word "flangmong", am I able to imagine "flangmong"? Does "flangmong" exist, prior to me thinking it? If no other human ever utters the word "flangmong", and this representation on Veeky Forums vanishes into the memoryhole, does "flangmong" still exist in any sense whatsoever? If in ten million years someone else comes up with "flangmong", are they coming up with a brand new word, or are they "reviving" one that has "laid dormant", or "existed figuratively"?

>The consequences of an unfortunate name
Fucking this.

>Hurrdurr imaginary numbers? What's next, unicorns?
So tired of hearing that.

I wasn't implying that. I was just saying that with imaginary/complex numbers, we can describe things that are technically not imaginary.

I don't believe they are the same as real numbers or natural integers, as those can clearly be associated to physical quantities.

>They happen to perfectly describe dozens of physical phenomenons
No, they just simplify calculations for things that would normally involve trigonometry.

...

metod saniga

>ITT: turbo-autistics talk past each other because they refuse to say "no fuck I'm not talking about X I'm talking about what X *technically qualifies as*"

look at this casual and laugh

now that's what i call red pill

by that logic 0 doesn't exist

you can't count nothing!

neither do negative integers

you can't count negative objects!

The (((science))) behind AGW is primarily social science. Of course it's a religion in every way and can almost be labeled neo-Pagan.

Climate priests like any priest is a sort of authority figure. They can conjure up scary climate scenarios on their super computers, this is prophecy. They can disseminate these prophecies through a world wide propaganda media network, the etymology of propaganda is propagation of church dogma. As scary as these scenarios are there is of course always a fix, a way to save ones soul. In this case if enough CO2 emitters repent, and a CO2 tithe is collected, the prophecies may be forestalled and earth along with the climate heathens saved! this may involve great sacrifices up to and including life itself!

Any rejection of this dogma is met with an Inquisition of sorts, called deniers now this could easily escalate to a climate heretic hunt with weather vane crucifixions!

Like any religion time will tell if it sticks as it gets hold of the children before they attain any critical thinking skills for themselves. The problem with pop religion today is it's great anti-thesis, pop science. This is where the pure genius and Machiavellian nature of the growing AGW cult shines...
>To control the opposition we should lead it ourselves - Lenin

ITT: people who don't understand the difference between "numbers" and "quantity"

>ever since cavemen discovered they could count by constructing an infinite set where every element of the set has a succesor.
wew lad

>technically not imaginary
The point is to separate the definition of that stupid word in general context from it simply being what the y component of a complex number is denoted, namely, "the imaginary part". Complex number are equivalent to 2-tuples of real numbers. Complex numbers are just REAL numbers with TWO dimensions.