I suppose it's not too clear to me what you mean then, but of course this is an abstract topic so that's to be understood. A size just by itself is meaningless

I suppose it's not too clear to me what you mean then, but of course this is an abstract topic so that's to be understood. A size just by itself is meaningless, if I said I have Aleph_0 units of happiness well for all you know I could be depressed, even if I said I have 2^Aleph_0 units of happiness I could still be depressed. It's only if you can compare what those units of happiness are to things you are familiar with, like how many units of happiness is eating chocolate, or being able to rest after a hard and productive day at work, that you would be able to get a sense of how happy (or depressed) I am. So sure, just knowing the size of the real numbers on its own without comparing it to anything doesn't change its significance in and of itself because it's meaningless. But if we could begin to identify certain sets that were smaller than the size of the reals (and larger than the naturals), and we could identify properties of these sets that gave us a sense of their expressive power, their reasoning power, etc... then we might start to appreciate just how large the real numbers are. We know categorically that Aleph_1 is the size of the set of the first uncountable ordinal number w_1, so any ordinal less than w_1 is countable. If the size of the continuum is Aleph_1 then that would have rather unintuitive implications involving the types of functions that are possible to define and reason about along with their relationship to probabilities and randomly choosing real numbers within the interval [0, 1] depending on whether the size of the real numbers is Aleph_1 or bigger. Probably one of the more accessible arguments for why this is is linked below [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiling%27s_axiom_of_symmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiling%27s_axiom_of_symmetry