In other words, cutting your beams to +/- 1/2” may work for each individual beam in a building but that does not imply that your building as a whole can tolerate an average beam length being +.499” above nominal.
The stronger version of the argument is that the length of a steel beam cannot be more precise(-ish) than the radius of an iron atom, so only 10-12 decimal places (in meters) are required to fully describe a steel beam's length. Likewise an actual circle's area isn't a function of Pi, but is rather a 'really large number' regular polyhedron. Which could then be approximated by a fairly pedestrian number of decimal points of pi to atomic precision.
That said e.g. orbits are rather smooth, and could probably be considered to be fairly exact w.r.t. an arbitrary reference.
You start with doing something the most correct way possible on paper and then convert that into the fastest possible method within your allowable bounds on precision and/or convergence. Operational reordering to keep additions in floats with similar exponents is great but you save that concern until it’s time to crunch numbers. When you’re trying to build an entire theory on how something complex works you’ll have a much better time using the available abstractions to manage complexity without getting bogged down in implementation details.
Edit: addressing your point more directly, numerical computation itself must necessarily be done over fixed precision numbers but the tools we use to decide what and how to do that computation come out of theory done over the reals because of those specific properties of the reals. You can make things work over the rationals but the theory is tedious and the results of generally lower utility.
Any issues introduced by using a finite approximation to Pi will eventually be swamped by the uncertainty in the initial conditions. If there's no uncertainty in the initial conditions, there will still be some finite approximation to Pi that will give you results as accurate as you can measure...