[Govannon]

Possible linguistic pedantry; he used "a" set of natural numbers, but "the" set of real numbers. It's equally difficult to represent the set of natural numbers.

[jsprogrammer]

It's not pedantry, it's just what the words mean.

To the question: I'm only saying that the "set of real numbers" and the "set of natural numbers" don't seem to exist.

Despite numerous downvotes, no one has yet produced them here (or even a link to them).

[orbat]

I can't produce the set of all humans on Earth either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Both real and natural numbers can be reasoned about despite their infinite size (and we even know that e.g. there must be "more" real numbers than natural numbers, even though both sets are infinite)

[jsprogrammer]

The set of all humans is produceable, you simply bound by the planet, or solar system.

There are no bounds in the universe that can contain all the real or natural numbers.

[crististm]

If real numbers exist or not is irrelevant. The question is if we can solve some problems by assuming one way or another.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

here is a representation of the real numbers: ℝ

and here is one of the natural numbers: ℕ

[jsprogrammer]

How can I select an arbitrary, or even random, element from either?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Who said that you could?

[jsprogrammer]

Zermelo?

Axiom of choice says I should be able to select an element from the set of real numbers (assuming it exists; but, I believe the assumption to be counterfactual).

[DigitalPhysics]

I agree. Even though the axiom of choice is independent of ZF, I don't think it is self-evident axiom. It actually seems pretty counter-intuitive if you believe in infinite-precision real numbers that have an infinite amount of information and can't be compressed. I have more to say on this in "Digital Physics" (the movie). -Khatchig