If this world was not abstract in any way, then everything about it and in it would be able to be explained in a linear fashion, which is obviously untrue. There are countless abstract things about how this world--and the systems within it--works, including the very nature of its physical make-up, that can never be explained in a concrete manner. 'Concrete' is actually a misnomer, as these properties are not absolute, but only seemingly static due to the level of observation. The concrete properties of the world are the surface representation of its abstract properties, and neither of the two are any more or less relevant, as the only difference between them is the level of observation. They both have their place, and are equally as important.
It's like comparing the two main branches of physics: one is better suited to observations on a scale within the confines of this planet (i.e. ballistics, stress measurements factored into architectural design), while the other is better suited for microscopic and cosmic observations (i.e. atomic theory, space-time interactions). They both do the same basic thing, but differently. It's the same with sensing and intuition.
You also missed the point marmalade.sunrise was making. It was an analogy between your argument and a hypothetical one. You're taking what was said personally, when it was never said in a personal way to begin with.