OK, but surely only because the exact value of 1 exists in the first place.

My first thought on reading your comment was to disagree and say no, we can have the exact value of 1, because we can choose our system of units and so we can make the square a unit square by fiat.

A better way to dispute the unit square diagonal argument for the existence of sqrt(2) would be to argue that squares themselves are unphysical, since all measurements are imprecise and so we can't be sure that any two physical lengths or angles are exactly the same.

But actually, this argument can also be applied to 1 and other discrete quantities. Sure, if I choose the length of some specific ruler as my unit length, then I can be sure that ruler has length 1. But if I look at any other object in the world, I can never say that other object has length exactly 1, due to the imprecision of measurements. Which makes this concept of "length exactly 1" rather limited in usefulness---in that sense, it would be fair to say the exact value of 1 doesn't exist.

Overall I think 1, and the other integers, and even rational numbers via the argument of AIPendant about egg cartons, are straightforwardly physically real as measurements of discrete quantities, but for measurements of continuous quantities I think the argument about the unit square diagonal works to show that rational numbers are no more and no less physically real than sqrt(2).

▲

AIPedant 6 days ago | parent [-]

You can say it’s exactly 1 plus or minus some small epsilon and use the completeness of the reals to argue that we can always build a finer ruler and push the epsilon down further. You have a sequence (meters, decimeters, centimeters, millimeters, etc) where a_n is the resolution of measurement and 5*a_(n+1) determines your uncertainty.

However, at each finite n we are still dealing with discrete quantities, i.e. integers and rationals. Even algebraic irrationals like sqrt(2) are ultimately a limit, and in my view the physicality of this limit doesn’t follow from the physicality of each individual element in the sequence. (Worse, quantum mechanics strongly suggests the sequence itself is unphysical below the Planck scale. But that’s not actually relevant - the physicality of sqrt(2) ultimately assumes a stronger view about reality than the physicality of 2 or 1/2.)

	▲	tomrod 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> A professor sets up a challenge between a mathematics major and an engineering major > They were both put in a room and at the other end was a $100 and a free A on a test. The experimenter said that every 30 seconds they could travel half the distance between themselves and the prize. The mathematician stormed off, calling it pointless. The engineer was still in. The mathematician said “Don’t you see? You’ll never get close enough to actually reach her.” The engineer replied, “So? I’ll be close enough for all practical purposes.” While you nod your head OR wag your finger, you continuously pass by that arbitrary epsilon you set around your self-disappointment regarding the ineffability of the limit; yet, the square root of two is both well defined and exists in the universe despite our limits to our ability to measure it. Thankfully, it exists in nature anyhow -- just find a right angle! One could simply define it as the ratio of the average distance between neighboring fluoride atoms and the average distance of fluoride to xenon in xenon tetrafluoride.