>>12372888please forget that it's called the imaginary unit, that's just a naming convention.
yes technically you could find a big set of things that you can only count with R(actually only Q but you are a fag).
Now imagine you have a signal and you wanna describe it's point in a 2d coordinate system, one axis is time, as signals change in time and the other one is amplitude. Now you could use a vector with two coordinates but that would make every computation expnentially harder and maybe even less intuitive, as (2-coordinate) vectors are good at describing vector addition, but not rotation. Now imagine instead of that system, you just take one axle as a normal number and the other one as a kind of rotation. And guess what? When you treat vectors as complex numbers (algebraically closed under roots( i think)) then you you get another complex number. And you don't have to fidget around with the dot product, or the cross product(which literally leaves 2D). Now of course you won't find complex numbers in nature just lying around. But they are really useful for solving problems which ARE applied to the real world.
https://slehar.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/clifford-algebra-a-visual-introduction/Give this a read. You are using this (2-coord) vector system because this one got popular. The other one exists too
