I have heard people say that a major goal of number theory is to understand the absolute Galois group of the rational numbers $G = \mathrm{Gal}(\bar{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$. What do people mean when they say this? The Kronecker-Weber theorem gives a good idea of what the abelianization of $G$ looks like. But in one of Richard Taylor's MSRI talks, Taylor said that he's never heard of anyone proposing a similar direct description of $G$ and that to understand $G$ one studies the representations of $G$.
I know that there is a strong interest in showing the Langlands reciprocity conjecture [Edit: What I had in mind in writing this is evidently Clozel's conjecture, not the Langlands reciprocity conjecture – see Kevin Buzzard's post below] – that $L$-functions attached to $\ell$-adic Galois representations coincide with $L$-functions attached to certain automorphic representations. And I've heard people refer to the Tannakian philosophy which I understand as (roughly speaking) asserting that $G$ is determined by all of its finite dimensional representations.
Here is a representation of $G$ understood not to be a representation of $G$ as an abstract group but as a group together with a labeling of some of the conjugacy classes of G by rational primes (the Frobenius elements)?
When people talk about "understanding $G$" do they mean proving [Edit: Clozel's conjecture] (in view of the Tannakian philosophy)? If not, what do they mean? If so, this conceptualization seems quite abstract to me. Is this what people mean when they say "understand $G$"? Can [Edit: Clozel's conjecture] be used to give more tangible statements about $G$?
Something that I have in mind as I write this is the inverse Galois problem (does every finite group occur as a Galois group of a normal extension of $\mathbb{Q}$?) and Gross' conjecture (mostly proven by now) that for each prime $p$ there exists a nonsolvable extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ ramified only at $p$. But I am open to and interested in other senses and respects in which one might "understand" $G$.
Best Answer
What would it mean to understand this Galois group? You could mean several things.
You could mean trying to give the group in terms of some smallish generators and relations. This would be nice, and help to answer questions like the inverse Galois problem that Greg Muller mentioned, and having a certain family of "generating" Galois automorphisms would allow you to study questions about e.g. the representation theory in quite explicit terms. However, the Galois group is an uncountable profinite group, and so to give any short description in terms of generators and relations leads you into subtle issues about which topology you want to impose.
You could also ask for a coherent system of names for all Galois automorphisms, so that you can distinguish them and talk about them on an individual basis. One system of names comes from the dessins d'enfant that Ilya mentioned: associated to a Galois automorphism we have some associated data.
These two names satisfy some relations, called the $2$-, $3$-, and $5$-cycle relation, which are conjectured to generate all relations (at least the last time I checked), but it is difficult to know whether they actually do so. If they do, then the Galois group is the so-called Grothendieck-Teichmüller group.
The problem with this perspective is that the names aren't very explicit (and we don't expect them to be: we may need the axiom of choice to show they exist, and there are only two Galois automorphisms of $\mathbb{C}$ that are measurable functions!) and it seems to be a difficult problem to determine whether the Grothendieck-Teichmuller group really is the whole thing. (Or it was the last time I checked.)
However, the cyclotomic character is a nice, and fairly canonical, name associated for Galois automorphisms. We could try to generalize this: there are Kummer characters telling us what a Galois automorphism does to the system of real positive roots of a positive rational number number (these determine a compatible system of roots of unity, or equivalent an element of the Tate module of the roots of unity). This points out one of the main difficulties, though: we had to make choices of roots of unity to act on, and if Galois theory taught us nothing else it is that different choices of roots of an irreducible polynomial should be viewed as indistinguishable. Different choices differ by conjugation in the Galois group.
This brings us to the point JSE was making: if we take the "symmetry" point of view seriously, we should only be interested in conjugacy-invariant information about the Galois group. Assigning names to elements or giving a presentation doesn't really mesh with the core philosophy.
So this brings us to how many people here have mentioned understanding the Galois group: you understand it by how it manifests, in terms of its representations (as permutations, or on dessins, or by representations, or by its cohomology), because this is how it's most useful. Then you can study arithmetic problems by applying knowledge about this. If I have two genus $0$ curves over $\mathbb{Q}$, what information distinguishes them? If I have two lifts of the same complex elliptic curve to $\mathbb{Q}$, are they the same? How can I get information about a reduction of an abelian variety mod $p$ in terms of the Galois action on its torsion points? Et cetera.