> Which real numbers? All of them? That's a kind of mental infinitude that I don't think exists, although Kurt Gödel did. I read the article as saying that rea

> Which real numbers? All of them? That's a kind of mental infinitude that I don't think exists, although Kurt Gödel did. I read the article as saying that real numbers as a mathematical concept is not a useful physical concept, and that considering classical physics with that as a first principle yields non-determinism even in classical models. Which is to say that the number "5.78" (exactly) has no physical meaning, even though the number "5.78" (measured) is useful. If you put something 5.7800 cm from another object, and run an experiment that relies on something on the seventh decimal point of that distance, the result will be random. From a classical point of view, the argument would be that measurement error accrues, and the randomness is extrinsic. The author argues that if you consider the randomness to be intrinsic instead, then you potentially gain some insight into the bridge between classical and quantum mechanics. I'm not as convinced as the author, because quantifying where exactly the intrinsic error is introduced is very closely related to the foundations of quantum mechanics. There's no reason classically that you can't make an arbitrarily sensitive measuring device to resolve the "randomness".