[hughw]

the length of time it takes a modern computer to count to 10 or 1,000 is perhaps inconceivably small by your metric

But I'd just call it "instantaneous" and something I experience frequently. Whereas 10^3978 years is beyond experience and even imagination.

[crazygringo]

> But I'd just call it "instantaneous" and something I experience frequently.

Then since you're OK with all smaller numbers being equally "instantaneous", then 1/10^4000 seconds is instantaneous too. Add up enough of those to make a second, and you can conceive of your previously inconceivable number! :)

Of course, that will seem silly. I'm just illustrating I don't think there are any grounds for claiming exponentially large numbers are inconceivable, but exponentially small numbers are somehow conceivable. They're just as far from 1, multiplicatively, no matter which direction you go in.

[hughw]

All right! I cannot count to any fractional number, even conceivable ones, so using the counting time to assess conceivability fails for all fractions.

For small numbers, groping for any experience in the macro world fails once you get below the Planck scale.

I'm afraid you might have broken the fabric of the universe by even typing such a small number.