The Instigator
walkerajr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Winning
21 Points

Do imaginary things truly exist or not? Can this universe be a universe that has real and non-real p

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 14 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,037 times Debate No: 1813
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

walkerajr

Pro

Do imaginary things truly exist or not? Can this universe be a universe that has real and non-real parts to it?

I think that if we know that mathematics explains natural phenomenon with accuracy and precision. Maybe the study of the diffent classes of numbers can tell us something about how many different measurements we can possibly get out of reality. Maybe irrational numbers do materially exist. These numbers would represent measurements of the real world or "material" world. Maybe Imaginary numbers can explains measurements, for instance, the volume of mind. How the length of a thought.

Con

Sorry for the delay in posting my rebuttal - I had some computer problems and beginning of classes... Anyway, here goes...

Imaginary things do not exist. If they existed, they could not, by definition, be imaginary. To answer your other question, yes there are portions of the universe with a real quality, but no substantial existence. For example, perfect equilateral triangles are able to be conceptualized, thus they exist, but they are not actualized (no concrete examples).

Imaginary numbers cannot be used to "measure" anything. In order to measure something, it must be quantifiable. Numbers like the square root of -1 are not quantifiable, because they simply don't exist. They CAN'T materially exist. It's easy to understand how 2 is the square root of 4. But it is impossible to multiply a real number by itself and obtain a negative number.

Attempting to quantify things that are not actualized - like volume of mind or length of a thought - cannot be done. In order to be quantified, the thing must have a quantifiable aspect. For example, even though perfect equilateral triangles are not actualized, one can quantify the length of a side, or the number of them that are cognized. This is because we can assign a hypothetical actualization to the thought temporarily. To assign a hypothetical actualization to something like volume of mind is impossible without assigning an endless string of variables to the hypothetical. - What shape is it? What is the density of thought in this volume?

To arbitrarily assign variables to uncognizable and unactualized things is pointless. If I tell you my volume of mind is 13.24i, schifty-five, or 9 scrinnies, you have no idea at all what I mean. I might as well tell you my volume of mind is warke ug froppen. The length of my thought is dublor gorney.

Assigning imaginary variables to other imaginary things is completely pointless.
Debate Round No. 1
walkerajr

Pro

walkerajr forfeited this round.

Con

Well I suppose since there's no rebuttal, I'll just not post anything substantiative. My argument stands - you can't use imaginary measurements to quantify an imaginary things in any sort of meaningful way.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Anonymous 14 years ago
kotamo
we are all paradoxes everything we see is a paradox. were just spiraling down farther and farther into infinity ... just accept it.
Posted by Anonymous 14 years ago
kenicks
i admire walkerajr's confidence by bringing up this theory, but cannot agree with him.
Posted by Anonymous 14 years ago
DeletedUser
I understand imaginary numbers and their application to the real world. But in this case, Pro argued for their use in LENGTH and VOLUME - and they cannot be used there. Take for example the equation 1 + e^(pi * i) = 0.... certainly true, and possibly useful, but says absolutely nothing about the nature of quantifiable measurements.
Posted by Anonymous 14 years ago
lazarus_long
Oh, sigh. Now "Tarzan" is also confused about just what "imaginary" means with respect to numbers. It's going to come as a surprise to him, I have to assume, to learn that "imaginary numbers" most certainly ARE used to "measure" things. They may not be what you would commonly encounter as "material" measurements - i.e., we generally don't turn to "imaginary" numbers when dealing with things like weight, length, or area - but there are actually quite a few engineering calculations which involve "real" (in the sense of being physical phenomena) things but which involve "imaginary" numbers.

The problem here is that the word "imaginary" simply DOES NOT mean, in math, what it means in lay usage. It would have been better, perhaps, if some other word had been chosen for use here, but it's a bit late to be changing that now.
Posted by Anonymous 14 years ago
lazarus_long
This should be interesting. "Pro" is clearly confused about just what is meant by the term "imaginary" number in mathematics (and confusing those with "irrational" numbers, to boot!).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tara6510 13 years ago
tara6510
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by uiop 14 years ago
uiop
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 14 years ago
solo
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 14 years ago
mmadderom
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lexmastaflex013 14 years ago
lexmastaflex013
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenicks 14 years ago
kenicks
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Anonymous 14 years ago
walkerajrAnonymousTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.