[nimih]

It's certainly possible to interpret numbers as types, but it's not particularly common AFAIK, since there are generally more convenient interpretations of arithmetic for a given problem domain (von Neumann sets, Dedekind cuts, IEEE 754 floating point values, &c &c).

[koolala]

imaginary numbers to me are more real than real numbers, they are the numbers of geometry - i like them being first class numbers

[nimih]

Personally, I've always found that the non-rigidity of the complex numbers (i.e. that when considered as a field, they admit a non-trivial automorphism), which requires the introduction of the Re and Im operators (i.e. projection back to the reals) to banish, to be strongly suggestive that the reals have a somehow more "real" ontological status.