Comment by A_D_E_P_T
Whether or not nature is discrete is an open question, but it's rather strongly implied, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the universe is incomputable.
> You can measure any value to arbitrary precision
Quantum mechanics lets you refine one observable indefinitely if you are willing to sacrifice conjugate observables.
You can measure that one observable to an arbitrarily (not infinitely!) high precision -- if you have an correspondingly arbitrary duration of time and arbitrarily powerful computational resources. That measurement of yours, if exceedingly precise, might require a block of computronium which utilizes the entire energy resources of the universe. As a practical matter, that's not permitted. I'm certainly unaware of any measurement in physics to more than 100 significant digits, let alone "arbitrary precision".
In fact, as it turns out, no experiment has ever resolved structure down to the Planck length. A fundamental spatial resolution is likely to be quite a lot smaller than the Planck length; even the diameter of the electron has been estimated at anywhere from 10^-22m to 10^-81m.
The question I was responding to asked whether reals are "necessary" -- plainly, insofar as reality is concerned, they are not.
We cannot measure anywhere near the Planck length or anything like 100 significant figures.
My concern with the reals goes the other direction. The reals are not closed under common operations. A lot of the work is done in complex numbers, which are. The rationals are not closed under radicals, and radicals seem pretty fundamental.
You can define a finitist model despite this. But it's ugly, and while ugliness is not physically meaningful, it tends to make progress difficult. A usable solution may yet arise; we shall (perhaps) see.