My second post after that one elaborates. I know abstractions are applied concretely. I agree with his in real numbers. I know they're all basically (For lack of a better word.) made up, in a sense. Negative numbers can exist. I just never get imaginary numbers. They were invented for problems that have no real solution and then applied concretely? It's a little throwing. I'm not in to higher math either.
You need to separate the term from what it represents. Like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither a democracy or a republic, does not represent its people, and certainly doesn't have a prayer at consuming the rest of historical Korea.
Likewise, the terms imaginary number and real number are just classifications. The -terms- are abstractions, the numbers themselves are not. You might, for example, read that the three spacial dimensions are real dimensions, and that time is an imaginary dimension. It's not incorrect, but certainly, time is quite real, you would agree.
Likewise, string theory requires at least six additional 'real dimensions'. They may not exist, they may have nothing to do with reality, but are still termed real dimensions because that's the underlying math behind them.
Three-phase electrical power is another example - phase to phase voltage will always have an 'imaginary' component, but if you cross it you will find that the resulting shock is quite real : )
i = sqrt (-1)
We call the result imaginary, but in terms of mathematics, its use lets us handle very concrete aspects of our Universe, from understanding time itself to supplying your computer (and every machine in between you and me) with power.
The author thing wasn't for your argument, it was for whoever said the sum of all things equals God. That's sort of like saying two plus two equals me just because I wrote it on the board. I believe if we were to see the universe as a whole (and survive) we would see the ideas of God but not God himself. However, if you believe in God, he doesn't see everything just as it is. Like we would. He would be able to see everything that has been and will be knowing all possibilities of every quark in the universe. So I have to imagine his big picture would make ours look something like a Highlights picture puzzle.
I was addressing them with that, but you're still making the same mistake.
You technically have omniscient control over your computer. Do you know every last thing that goes on? Of course not. In fact for any Turing complete machine, such knowledge is not just difficult, but actively impossible. You can have a great deal of understanding, but you cannot have complete understanding.
That only disproves an omniscient God if logic applies to it, but the resulting dichotomy there is amusing.