>>13824623They aren't numbers so they aren't math.
>B-but they're real imaginary They certainly are really imaginary.
>>13824623>Just look at schrodingers wave equationWhat experiment justifies the need for the equation in the first place? The need for these "not of numbers" to be considered "of number"? They still cannot even justify "0" as a "number". It represents no quantity.
It's like the Shrodingers cat "thought experiment"...A fart in the wind, never done nor the "results" of such have ever been empirically verified. Yet people cite it as if there's an underlying meaning in it or as if it proves the existence of an actual paradox to be spoken of.
