Why do you continually use examples of what is understood to compare to reality. It must be safe to assume that you believe you understand reality as well as numbers.
This leads me to go back to where this began. You claimed that it's non-nonsensical to ask how big reality is. I make no claims to understand what reality is, I know how I perceive it but am wise enough to make a distinction between my perception and to make claims about what questions I can answer with certainty about whether its nonsensical or not. What makes you think you can? If the material is all that exists then why do you propose reality cannot be measured?
This leads me to go back to where this began. You claimed that it's non-nonsensical to ask how big reality is. I make no claims to understand what reality is, I know how I perceive it but am wise enough to make a distinction between my perception and to make claims about what questions I can answer with certainty about whether its nonsensical or not. What makes you think you can? If the material is all that exists then why do you propose reality cannot be measured?
