Empiricism is autoreliable. And is perhaps the only thing that is. It continually reconceptualizes our understandings and produces its own reliability. See how

Empiricism is autoreliable. And is perhaps the only thing that is. It continually reconceptualizes our understandings and produces its own reliability. See how things like the indifference assumption of statistical mechanics is now empirically generated. Empirical science in limited domains can explain its own reliability and justification. But what you’ve done is none empirically assert numbers are “this”. Cities are “this”. No non-empirical claims have the same weight as empirical science. It’s not that empirical science should talk about things it does not yet know, rather we shouldn’t make claims like yours. We should only go as far empirical science says if you want to match empirical science’s reliability, and it doesn’t say numbers are metaphysical categories.