> I think the issue with this way of thinking is that humans think in abstractions.

Isn't that the entire point of making abstractions? Understanding things "as they are" is impossible, so we need simplifications. Of course it should be appreciated that the abstractions are always "wrong".

"A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

I think the point is more that if you’re saying one abstraction is similar to another abstraction, you run the risk of over-analyzing the abstraction level and not the thing-in-itself.