When you say "most" of the numbers are non-computable, the word "most" is meaningless in this context. There are infinitely many of each kind of numbers you have listed there. You can't compare one infinity to another and say that one kind of infinite is bigger than the other. The concept of comparison (smaller/bigger) doesn't exist outside of finite numbers. Cantor was just what people thought he was - a crack, who did not consider the bounds of logical comparison.
And for the line itself, the line is not made up of numbers. Line is made up of continuity, while numbers are cuts in that continuum. Infinite number of cuts do not make up a continuous piece. Mathematical continuity (or extent or measure or span) is the essence of the imaginary spatial existence. It is not composed of cuts. A cut is a non-existence, completely opposite of the existence.
This is not the case. A set A can be said to be larger than set B if there exists an injection from A to B, but not from B to A. This is a well-defined extension of the concept of size in finite numbers, and preserves all the properties you might expect (e.g. transitivity).
Probabilistically it’s true. Pick a number at random from the uniform distribution of values between zero and one. With nearly total certainty, this value cannot be represented except by enumerating every single one of its infinite digits.
What does it mean to pick a number at random between zero and one?
Does "picking a number at random" even make sense for an infinitely large set where you can't describe most items? Isn't "picking" the act of describing an item? (This might sound like a stupid question but I'm sure there is a mathematical definition of "picking")
If I pick a number at random using some method for picking that requires me to identify what I picked then 100% of the time I'll get a number I can identify, such as the number that is the solution to x^2=2, or the ratio between a square and a circle, or the quotient of 3 and 7. All those numbers I can't describe will never be picked.
I can do infinitely many coin flips and say the number I picked has the decimals described by that binary sequence. But I'd never be done picking...
Do you know measure theory? It gives you a formal definition of "almost all" or "almost surely" based on subsets which have the same measure as the full set they're in. Like the irrational numbers between 0 and 1.
If you say one kind of infinite is smaller than the other kind, then the first kind no longer qualifies to be called as an infinite as it smaller than some other number. So first you need to define what an infinite is.
Also infinite is not a number. And comparison exists only for numbers.
Unfortunately this line of argument doesn't quite work either. You could replace "real numbers" by "rational numbers" and it would still be true except for the last line. The size of the integers is the same as the size of the rationals. You have to think in terms of injective functions.
And for the line itself, the line is not made up of numbers. Line is made up of continuity, while numbers are cuts in that continuum. Infinite number of cuts do not make up a continuous piece. Mathematical continuity (or extent or measure or span) is the essence of the imaginary spatial existence. It is not composed of cuts. A cut is a non-existence, completely opposite of the existence.