> you might be referring to infinite sets of reals being potentially unordered under zfc w/o the axiom of choice. In that case, you made up this word 'infinite' so you have to say what it means. I guess calling that a word game is one way to think about it.
Yeah. Since "uncountable infinite" has no real world meaning (maybe in some modern physics it does?), it's hard to say what the natural definition of real numbers is, and things like axiom of choice's true value is quite arbitrary.
But even at a less-abstract level, I don't think the comparability of real numbers is so obvious. For example if you just define a (irrational) real number as a non-repeating decimal,
or "a program on a Turing machine that prints digits and never halts"[1], then how do we know comp(A, B) halts or not?
It's not a proof of that real numbers are not comparable (since it just reduces comp(A,B) to halting problem, not vice versa), but at least for me it's telling that simple things like comparison is not always simple.
[1]: Of course it's ill-defined and can't cover all real numbers, since the number of programs on a giving Turing machine is countable.