>>12561857The problem with this statement is that it requires a context which is itself debatable.
Yes, ZF proves R uncountable and if D subset R were the set of definable numbers (however, "definable" is not first order expressible, it's only a metalogical notion anyway), then U:=R\D would, in ZF, denote the uncountable set of numbers where none of it's elements is definable.
But the since we need a huge context to even make sense of U, it's not really fair to claim that this is something our brains can't comprehend, since the notion in which this U "exists" is questionable.
Maybe I can find some consistent formal logic and cook up some funky interpretations of what those symbols mean - then this state of affair would not have more or less justification that the conceptualization of U
