>>12784151I don't even understand this shit. As a mathfag, I have to say, these guys are philosophically illiterate.
You can't perform a test to determine if complex numbers are real or not. It's a meaningless question. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Platonist and I believe mathematical truths are objective and not dependent on humans, but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to ask whether complex numbers "really" exist in nature. Nor does it makes sense to ask whether real numbers "really" exist in nature. The physical world is not made up of number. It's made up of physical objects that can instantiate numerical properties relative to purpose or conceptual scheme, and we can make true or false claims on the basis of that, but there is not fact of the matter as to whether a physical system is real, rational, complex, etc. It's either all of those things at the same time, or none of them, depending on how you want to look at it. What matters is that any of these systems can be used to describe pretty much the same physical theories.
