WinterWayfarer wrote:
NooBesT wrote:
WinterWayfarer wrote:
Everything is poison, there is poison in everything.
You need water to live and some parts of it might contain little bit of poison, but they aren't pure poison.
WinterWayfarer wrote:
Imaginary numbers are imaginary.
Things in your imagination don't exist, so therefore imaginary numbers are nothing.
First of all, I didn't say anything about "pure" poison. Second of all, "nothing" is equal to "imaginary". Try again.
(1.)
a. There is not poison in pure water (H2O, without impurities); pure water is part of the set of "everything," therefore you're wrong, based upon purity (or something being purified; all poisons removed therefrom).
b. Also, any poison is not actually "a poison" if it does not actually produce a reaction to it (as being poisonous); that it is acting/behaving like a poison. Dependent upon the concentration of an element/or/chemical; it can act (or not act) like a poison. So any poison in a small enough concentration will not behave as a poison. And, many non-poisons can behave as if they were a poison dependant upon the concentration. So, poisons & non-poisons can be in anything, and both can be either a: poison or non-poison, dependant upon the concentration level, so basically you're wrong.
c. Void; vacuum, nothingness, etc - is not a poison, it is a something; part of the set of everything; an anything. The very definition of being void is, more or less: nothing, nothingness, but tragically and not paradoxically this is a something. What is immaterial is merely the opposite of material. Anything immaterial is not a poison. Guess what, imaginary numbers aren’t poisons either. So basically in terms of anything which is immaterial - these are not poisons, so you're wrong.
(2.)
a. Nothing is not equal to imaginary: nothing is a not anything (from our human perspective; type of something) - it would not even be that which is immaterial (tis less than even that; even though it is a something). Imaginary numbers are immaterial abstractions. They are not material (or energy as we know it to be or can observe it to be). Imagination, imaginary, etc - consists of thoughts; these are manifestations related to consciousness. Consciousness does not have a manifest energy pattern - it exists without an energy-ground. We associate brain with mind and functions of mind, but this is not consciousness. Brain as mind, inflects, directs, informs consciousness but it does not generate this “form of being.” Imaginary numbers like
the square-root of -1; i, is a an analytic pattern of thought, existing in-mind (as imaginary numbers : as complex real numbers) as an energy-pattern; as a symbolic-representation that informs consciousness. On one hand, this symbolic-representation existing as an energy-chemical pattern existing in-mind is real - in the ordinary sense of the meaning of the word real. And, on the other hand, the understanding of what the symbolic-representation is, as it informs consciousness is real from the perspective of the immaterial, being real as an understanding that rests in informed consciousness (the immaterial ground of being). So you’re wrong.
b. Imaginary numbers are actually complex numbers. Despite the name, imaginary numbers are just as
real as real numbers. All numbers (mathematical symbols, formulas, etc) are abstractions, and abstractions are valid in the context they are used. (Example: fractions like 1/3, 1/2, etc are meaningless to a person counting apples, but essential to a person comparing the contents of baskets. A 1/2 basket of apples is not a whole basket of apples. Also, negative real numbers are meaningless in a baseball game, but important to boxing where a [-1] penalty point can be assessed based upon the fighters poor sportsmanship. The same is true for complex real numbers : imaginary numbers : a + bi, they are context dependent (when used). So you’re wrong.
From:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexNumber.htmlComplex numbers are useful abstract quantities that can be used in calculations and result in physically meaningful solutions. However, recognition of this fact is one that took a long time for mathematicians to accept. For example, John Wallis wrote, "These Imaginary Quantities (as they are commonly called) arising from the Supposed Root of a Negative Square (when they happen) are reputed to imply that the Case proposed is Impossible" (Wells 1986, p. 22).
Meaning even though they are abstractions and are real in that context, they also can be used like any other real number (in the proper applied context) that involves real physical quantities, and its calculated solutions are real physical quantities. So you’re wrong.
Application (context usage of imaginary numbers : complex real numbers) in Electrical Engineering:
http://regentsprep.org/REgents/mathb/2C … esouce.htm
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-18 08:44:50)