While I can find no fault with the deductive validity of this argument - the conclusion certainly seems to follow from the premises - I'm afraid this is as successful as the argument gets. Not just one, but both of the premises commit logical fallacies which they hide in the vagueness of their formulation.
It takes a fair few years of a university degree to begin to realise that symmetry is perhaps the most fundamental concept in modern physics. It's no accident that one of the leading candidates for new physics is called "Supersymmetry".
To anyone who doesn't use abstract mathematics on a daily basis, the concept of an imaginary number sounds absurd. We can't use them to count things, as we can with natural numbers.
This isn't an action shot of a cube of metal as it falls to the ground. This is real life levitation.
To anyone who is confused about what it is exactly that theoretical physicists do, here is a brief yet broad summary of what we're trying to achieve.
If we see green apples fall from a tree every day, why should we reason inductively and conclude that every apple that falls from the tree will be green? Why not conclude instead that the next apple to fall from the tree will be red?
The universe in colour! ...or not. The object I'm focusing on today is almost completely black, it gives off virtually no radiation of any sort.
“To those who are trained in science, creationism seems a bad dream, a sudden coming back to life of a nightmare, a renewed march of an Army of the Night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment.” - Isaac Asimov
Infinity is still an extremely mysterious concept that we're unable to properly grasp, yet mathematicians have penetrated deeper into the world of infinity than ever before, and there is a wealth of new discoveries. The interesting question is whether these infinities have any relevance to the real physical world.