Thoughts about "Compile-time types" talk

[dayllenger]

On Friday, 17 May 2019 at 19:43:15 UTC, Alex wrote:
> If you agree that your brain takes sensory data and presents it 
> to you as abstractions.

Who is "you" then, if you say like the brain is separated from 
that "you"?

> then, in fact, everything you know is an abstraction...

So, abstraction becomes knowledge, in your definition?

> because all your information came through you by sensory data 
> which was abstracted.

Not quite true (protip: every act of cognition assume that you 
already know about space or time).

> The problem we have is you seem to think abstractions are not 
> real.

Depends on what is real.

> Without them we couldn't even have this conversation, literally.

Maybe, but it does not imply that they are real:

"Conversation is real and powered by abstractions."
"Magpies are black-and-white and powered by food."

> Abstractions are not imaginary.

If so, and real is something that I theoretically can touch, can 
I touch a number?