> It’s as if a biologist were to say: “I have a great new theory of organisms. It lists many that exist and many that can’t possibly exist, and I can tell you nothing about the distinction.”
> Again, we’d laugh. Or should.
Should we? This reminds me acutely of imaginary numbers. They are a great theory of numbers that can list many numbers that do 'exist' and many that can't possibly 'exist'. And we did laugh when imaginary numbers were first introduced - the name itself was intended as a derogatory term for the concept. But who's laughing now?
Imaginary numbers are not relevant at all. There’s nothing whatsoever to do with the everyday use of the word imaginary. They could just as easily have been called “vertical numbers” and real numbers called “horizontal numbers” in order to more clearly illustrate their geometric interpretation in the complex plane.
The term “imaginary number” was coined by Rene Descartes as a derogatory and the ill intent behind his term has stuck ever since. I suspect his purpose was theological rather than mathematical and we are all the worse for it.
I'm confused by this comment - it seems to just be restating what my comment said.
This is the point where i realized he has no clue what he is saying. Theres so many creatures that once existed that can never again exist on earth due to the changes that the planet has gone through over millions, billions of years. The oxygen rich atmosphere that supported the dinosaurs for instance. If we had some kind of system that can put together proper working DNA for all the creatures that ever actually existed on this planet, some half of them would be completely nonviable if introduced to the ecosystem today. He is failing to see that there is an incredible understanding of systems that we are producing with this work, but he is a very old man from a very different time and contrarianism is often the only way to look smart or reasoned when you have no clue whats actually going on, so I am not shocked by his take.
In the case of complex numbers mathematicians understand the distinction extremely well, so I'm not sure it's a perfect analogy.