> on the rationals tie with reality

I feel like this ties back into the distinction between theoretical and applied math.

The basis in reality for the integers is counting discrete objects with fingers, for the rationals it's (likely) an attempt to fill in the spaces between integers using known concepts (ratios / fractions). Rationals are great if you stick to numerical work where discontinuities below epsilon can be ignored, but the rationals don't actually map to what we think of when we consider a philosophically real number system -- a discontinuous set does not match our observed experience which is that you can have any number you want between two you already have. The construction of the reals varies depending on how you want to approach it but each is equivalent: you fill in the all the holes everywhere but at the infinities so that you have a continuous closed set, just like one would intuitively expect from an infinite set of numbers representing segments of reality.

There's nothing special about the rationals which ties them more closely to reality than the reals, the rationals are just our first attempt to rigorously define all of the numbers between other numbers using the tools we had at the time.

One could just as easily construct the set $ = {x#y for all x, y in Z+} and where a#b === a + the Riemann sum of 1/(a^n) from n = 0 ... b. This also fills in some of the gaps between integers, just not enough to be interesting or particularly useful.

The rationals are interesting and stuck around because they fill in almost enough gaps to allow you to conveniently construct useful things. They're not quite there though, which is why we eventually developed the reals. And then the imaginary numbers, because despite the name physical phenomena which can be modeled using square roots of negative numbers end up presenting a compelling use case for adoption. We don't have complex numbers because some math nerd thought they were cool, we have complex numbers because they are useful in describing observed physical phenomena succinctly and as such there's enormous utility in hacking an extension onto the reals to add them.

Pulling this back around, from a theoretical perspective real & complex numbers are as real as anything else in math and are very useful to boot. You only run into issues in applied circumstances where nothing is exact and half of the things end up nondeterministic for one reason or another. Applied math requires countless shortcuts and discretionary tactics to convert things with a guarantee of correctness on the theoretical side into things which can actually be computed albeit with a correctness only within specified bounds.

Mapping between theoretical and applied math is a decent example of a pseudo one-way function, all of applied math draws from the theoretical but insights from applied math don't really map back into anything useful on the theoretical side. Which is why when we do theory and build models, we use theoretical techniques since the ability to prove correctness is the entire point. If you need numerical computation you must in exchange give up absolute correctness, which is why it is only appropriate to use during numerical computation.

> This is an observation on our interface with reality and not on its true nature, which may or may not admit reals (although my non-serious guess is that black holes form whenever you try to do something that requires a proper real number).

Well, let us know if you're able to develop a falsifiable experiment one way or another. That is definitely an interesting theory, unfortunately nobody has been able to figure out a way to poke that particular are-the-numbers-real-or-just-made-up bear.