***Are you trying to convince me that you are a complete and unredeemable idiot??? That was not worth the trouble of posting.***
Back to name calling, are we?
***H: Your definition "reality is a set of numbers" inherently involves people because you are talking about a concept that as far as we know only exists inside the heads of people. D:
You are saying that my definition (which has been put forth as completely unconstrained) "inherently involves people" because ... as far as we know" ... Why did you insert the phrase unless you wanted to constrain it to something which included the concept "people". Can you not comprehend that the moment you do that, you need to show me that the concept "people" is required in all possible universes!***
Dick, you used a term in your definition called 'numbers'. What is a number? It is a mental representation of a human. That's what a number is. What if someone defined reality as Cartoonland. Then that definition hinges upon the existence of a concept that exists inside the heads of humans as a concept.
I don't understand you. You think numbers, ideas, concepts, thoughts, exist outside a human being? If so, then you must prove it. I have never once tripped over a concept, a number has never been photographed in space by the Hubble, you can't find ideas in the ocean, etc. These are intangible things that don't exist on their own. You can't separate the intangible from the tangible. They are part and parcel of the definition.
Now, we can propose that those intangible things exist 'out there', but this is a proposition. If numbers exist (e.g., pi in the sky or Platonism), then you proposing a quite different scheme and it has a great deal of assumptions in your definition (e.g., non-material things exist, mathematical order exists, etc). That would completely defeat your idea of eliminating all chance of error from your 'model of reality'.
Warm regards, Harv