[SideQuark]

> using this definition everything is Natural, including fore example Complex numbers, which is obviously incorrect, and thus invalidates yr argument

Except you’re wrong here; should we thus call your argument “obviously incorrect”?

Complex numbers are natural; they’re fundamental in quantum mechanics. Ever since Schrödinger’s equation fundamentally required them for time evolution of states, physicists (and philosophers) wondered if they could be removed. Recent experiments say “no.” QED and QFTs are the most precise theories known in all of science.

https://physicsworld.com/a/complex-numbers-are-essential-in-...

[nivertech]

No doubt they're useful to explain some theories, but did someone observed in the Nature 6-4i apples or -7+3i particles?

[SideQuark]

They’re more than useful: they’re required, hence the research demonstrating it that I linked. That you don’t understand it doesn’t mean the rest of science is at your level of ignorance on the topic.

Your repeated, willful ignorance on a topic, especially when shown to you, is why you have such low understanding of the incorrect claims you make.

Take a moment and learn. Then maybe you’ll not repeat claims shown to be wrong.

[nivertech]

I never agreed or disputed whether they're required or not, what I asked was whether they (complex numbers) were ever observed in Nature

[SideQuark]

Yes, they have been observed in the same rigor as any number you claim has been observed. If you’d spend a moment and read instead of repeated willful ignorance, you’d learn something.

Now go do your homework. Attaching idiot phrases like complex apples is as stupid as claiming we don’t see radio waves so they can’t exist or that matter cannot be mostly empty space because you can stack books.

Your limited imagination, understanding, and unwillingness to learn, even when given a source and phrases to look into, doesn’t apply to those scientists that have done the work.

[nivertech]

> Yes, they have been observed

Any references?