>>12480292I don't know why you think this is such a huge accomplishment:
>Physics using reals and successfully describing reality with them.Basically everyone who has done some physics from Newton onwards has relied on the "infinite" decimal system to get arbitrary precision results to problems.
"""Real numbers""" have just been a(n) (failed) attempt at formalizing this concept mathematically in the past 100 years. In fact, one of the main motivating reasons for constructions of """R""" was to formalize the previously informal system of "infinite" decimal arithmetic/infinitesimals etc. since it was so effective in practical settings like physics/engineering.
And for the past 100 years, basically every physicist has bought into and built on top of the """real number""" system. Wildberger is probably one of the only people who is actively rebuilding analysis from a non-"""real number""" approach and he has been working for at best around a decade.
So you are correct in that 100 years of physics can't currently be replaced by one guy, but also he is not saying that you should drop everything immediately.
In fact, as a physicist, you should really have no opinion about the outcome of this either ways. If everyone continues to use """real numbers""" in your lifetime, then you don't have to do anything, but if a finitist approach does win out, the higher level concepts/properties you rely on should translate almost directly. Wildberger's issues are not with the application of """real numbers""" but rather their construction (their foundations). He does not deny their practical effectiveness, he just takes issue with how they are constructed.
