Existing by the numbers supposes the coincidence of objective reality. When technicians say the numbers don’t lie, it is a reference to the notion of an objective reality existing independent of the intention to produce it.
Science also supposes reality independent of perception. The earth looks flat, conforming to the parallel postulate; but then we discovered the parallel expostulate.
By the numbers, things can exist by coincidence. Measurable risk, for example, presumes the risk will eventually occur. This is the fully assumed risk of loss that financial analysts “use” to measure the “probability” of the risk. If the factors are organized (called “networking the externalities”) to avoid the probable risk, the risk is not actually reduced and its “useful value” can go parabolic. Financial-risk managers call this “the big risk”–referring to the law of large numbers, or existing by the numbers, which supposes the phenomenon (the perception) of co-incidence, posing then the hypothesis that can be “used” to exculpate the probability of deliberately producing a catastrophic risk proportion in the name of trying to avoid it.
The strength of the means measures the weakness of actually controlling the outcome, which is then attributed to “the big risk” that just happens to go out of control and, coincidently, turns the equity of millions of Americans into debt.
Is it really a coincidence that debt rises against falling median income?
The strength (the debt) equivalently measures the effective weakness (declining demand)–yielding to an even larger number, described by analysts as entropy of the macro-risk dimension.
Entropy just happens to (coincidentally) yield to its useful value–predictable (expected) crises of unpayable debt on demand, which serves to weaken the relative strength (the force and legitimacy) of the unavoidable, “big risk” argument.