[gbjw]

Well, based on a quick Google, there are approximately 10^186 Planck-length volumes in the known universe. So 10^241 is not physical in the sense that there is no way to 'realize' a set of 10^241 things.

Another related notion is that there is no way to 'realize' an irrational 'number' -- sqrt(2) can be defined but we can never draw a length of sqrt(2).

[anon291]

It really depends what you consider 'real'. It is actually pretty straightforward to realize a representation of 10^241 (you just did). Why does that make it any less real than the digit 2, which represents two things, but is actually just itself one thing.

> Another related notion is that there is no way to 'realize' an irrational 'number' -- sqrt(2) can be defined but we can never draw a length of sqrt(2).

Again, it's unclear what anyone means by things like 'sqrt(2)'. Why is drawing a thing of length sqrt(2) any different than drawing a thing of length 1? If I draw a thing of length 1 and say it's a line of length 1, then why is that different than my drawing the same line, claiming its length is sort(2) and then pointing out that it's actually now impossible to mark where 1 would appear along its length?

[gbjw]

> It really depends what you consider 'real'. It is actually pretty straightforward to realize a representation of 10^241 (you just did). Why does that make it any less real than the digit 2, which represents two things, but is actually just itself one thing.

One is a map, and the other is the territory. Both 'real' in some sense but a map without the territory feels less 'grounded' (pun?).

> Again, it's unclear what anyone means by things like 'sqrt(2)'. Why is drawing a thing of length sqrt(2) any different than drawing a thing of length 1? If I draw a thing of length 1 and say it's a line of length 1, then why is that different than my drawing the same line, claiming its length is sort(2) and then pointing out that it's actually now impossible to mark where 1 would appear along its length?

Perhaps a more precise way to describe the situation is that one can define one or the other as a base 'unit' but you can never get one from the other (they are 'incommensurate', as the greeks would say). Irrational numbers can be defined but not 'realized' (or 'constructed') in the same way that the rationals can.

[anon291]

> Irrational numbers can be defined but not 'realized' (or 'constructed') in the same way that the rationals can.

Once again, I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. If you have something that's of length 1, then you can easily construct the line with a ratio sqrt(2):1. Draw another line of length 1 (use compass and straightedge) at a 90 degree angle. Repeat 4 times until you have a square. Now draw the diagonal. You have successfully constructed the square root of 2 in your own setup.

There are numbers that cannot be constructed geometrically using only a compass and straightedge (e for example). However, again these are no less 'real'. Drawing lines is not the only measure of real. There are other methods. In computing, we often say a number is computable if you can define a function that, given any rational number can tell you if the number it represents is greater than or equal to the rational number. The square root of two and e and pi, etc are easily representable this way. There are some numbers that are not, and perhaps these can truly be said to not exist.

However, the field of computables is closed anyway, so it really doesn't matter if you don't want to believe the reals exist.

[gbjw]

Yes, apologies -- using the term 'construct' muddied the point as sqrt(2) is a 'constructible' number as you point out. The term 'real' is what's at issue here and I am arguing for a distinction between a 'map-like' real and a 'territory-like' real, the latter of which has some sort of spatiotemporal grounding.

> There are some numbers that are not, and perhaps these can truly be said to not exist.

So then we have a real issue because the vast majority of the real line is composed of these uncomputable numbers which you've suggested don't exist.

[anon291]

Sure, but no one uses the reals anyway for 'constructible' things. As I pointed out, the computable reals themselves form a closed field and are the things you would find when describing real life.

As for the 'problem'... I personally don't view it that way. In my opinion (and it's just that, since there's no mathematical 'truth' here), I don't believe non-computable reals exist in any meaningful way. I believe this is similar to how we talk about a 'program that can check if another one halts'. Anyone can make that statement and claim that such a thing exists, but it's not at all clear that such a thing exists. But that's a lot different than saying there are X particles in the universe, thus the number X + 1 does not exist. Because x + 1 does exist and you can write a turing machine that can compute it to any precision (or a lambda calculus function that'll give you the next church encoded representation of it, etc).

My point is two fold. Firstly that there are certainly numbers that are greater than the total number of 'stuff' in the universe. Secondly, that there are some numbers that cannot be described in any meaningful way. These can be said to not exist (my belief), but others disagree.