One serous reader’s notes on Instancology

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Hilko Peters

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 20:45

Subject: Instancology - remarks & questions

To: lsong60@gmail.com

Hello Mr. Song,

Thank you for your interest in my notes and your willingness to devote time to reading them. I hope this can lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas, although I'm not a professional philosopher myself. Below you can find my remarks & questions about Instancology. Please note these are resulting from a first reading only. 

At this point, I do not claim to fully grasp everything you write, nor do I claim to be infallible; therefore, some of my remarks might be mistaken or the result of insufficient understanding on my part, for which I present my humble apologies. Of course I will welcome all corrections, elaboration, further explanation or any other reactions you'd be willing to share.

Please also note all following remarks are sincerely meant to contribute to improvement; please don't take them personally, as however hard they might be formulated, disrespect is nowhere my intention. Such 'hard' formulations rather express a feeling of certainty on my part - which, however, still doesn't mean I can't be mistaken.

(I only started recording my remarks from p116 onwards, hence the general remarks on top of the list, which were made in retrospect and therefore don't refer to a specific page number)

- You repeatedly make unwarranted claims or conclusions (for an example see note P224 below)

- Either your text is often incoherent, sometimes to the point of becoming confounded - or else I fail to see certain connections between things you write about and/or implications of your reasoning

- You contradict yourself at least thrice (for an example see note PP197-198)

- There's a lot of topics/history treated in your text of which I hitherto fail to see the relevance to your overall subject. I agree though that this might be due to lack of understanding on my part, as I am not a trained philosopher but rather an interested layman

- Why do you invoke God so often? I think almost all of the instances (!) of it in your text are unwarranted or at least unnecessary

- I think drawing a (or several) diagram(s) showing the structure of instancology (displaying all your categories and concepts and positioning them vis-à-vis each other) would greatly aid the understanding of your philosophy. For example: a table containing the elements of the micro- and macro worlds, pointing out differences and equivalencies; a table with an overview of the categories of your ontology; etc.

P116 you misstate the uncertainty principle: mass and position actually can be known simultaneously; the correct pair which cannot simultaneously be known exactly is position and momentum. Note that although there are lots of these pairs, mass however doesn't have such a complementary property because it's not canonical.

You mention it correctly on p325, p379, p382, p441

P160 you are essentially claiming that because one function of the mind possesses infinite/absolute attributes, the mind itself and also all its other functions also do. This last step is certainly not necessarily true; a mind possessing absolute attributes may well have functions that don't.

P183 you deeply misunderstand quantum mechanics as well as string theory by equating string theory's strings to quantum mechanical wave functions; these are completely different and unrelated concepts.

P188 "the definition of motion is that at least time occurs" is an incorrect statement. Although the occurrence of time is indeed a necessary condition for motion to potentially exist, it is not a sufficient one, as it is still possible that there can be time (passing) without movement (occurring).

PP197-198 is a possible example of contradiction; you state here that "absolute being" has no counterpart while elsewhere you state that any concept necessarily generates or entails its opposite (duality). (Maybe this doesn't apply to absolute things, but I don't remember you explaining that - nor why it wouldn't. I feel "Absolute non-being" should also exist; at least it does as a theoretical concept.)

P198 you are at least a number of times guilty yourself of what you blame others for here (i.e. explaining concepts by only giving examples).

P202 "Without a guess beforehand, there can be no logical revelation afterwards" Why not? To me it seems a revelation can occur as long as there is incomplete knowledge (or none at all), whether or not one makes a guess as to what the truth would be - as well as guessing, alternatively one could simply accept the fact that one doesn't know.

Moreover, this only concerns the case of the 'known unknown', i.e. when one is aware there is something one doesn't know. But the truth about an 'unknown unknown', i.e. when one is not aware there's something one doesn't know, could very well be subject to revelation as well. In this last case there logically can of course be no guess occurring beforehand, as one doesn't even realize there's something there to guess about.

P212 you suddenly start referring to "Socrates and his two students, Plato and Aristotle", while earlier in the book you correctly framed Socrates as Plato's teacher and Plato as Aristotle's teacher. On p222 again, referring to Socrates, you mention "his two students, Plato and Aristotle", while only 5 lines further it's again "Plato believed (...), while his student Aristotle believed (...)". Wikipedia doesn't mention Aristotle studying under Socrates, so I guess pp212&222 are eligible for a more nuanced formulation.

P224 the mere constatation that something (in this case dichotomy) appears somewhere doesn't warrant the conclusion that it also originated there (that conclusion may or may not be correct, but this can't be known for sure from just instances).

P226 "different things do not directly produce a connection with each other" is mistaken. Merely differentiating two things from each other just by pointing out that they are different relates them to each other and thus establishes a connection between them. That's called Syndiffeonesis.

P236 review third sentence under header 6. Is this a misstatement or a typo, or does a dynamic perspective indeed involve static logic? If so, how does merely 'static' logic differ from 'static formal' logic?

P236 towards the bottom of this page, you state (I paraphrase) that finding the best way of resolving conflict is the reason why god created humans. Is that why there is so much conflict in the world?

P251 here you state in fact that "god is beyond question because it is the foundation of questioning." Then comes the next statement: "Therefore, if one wants to question Being-C (i.e. god), the question itself is a contradiction".

I'm sorry but either I completely misunderstand what you mean here, or else this is the most ridiculous 'proof of (the existence of) god' I have ever read. Elevating something/anything/whatever 'beyond questioning' is purely dogmatic reasoning, not in any way more credible than any other dogma (like for example the catholic dogma of papal infallibility).

And then you're essentially labeling any attempt at questioning this dogma as necessarily a contradiction. This only worsens the matter of dogmaticism.

In fact, being the foundation of questioning (I won't assess the credibility of this assertion here) doesn't elevate anyone/anything to be beyond questioning - on the contrary: being the foundation of questioning should lead anyone with a mind capable of thinking to the most logical and natural thing to do for any entity that is indeed the essence of questioning, namely auto-applying that capacity - and thus: questioning itself in the first place.

I tend to regard any statements appealing to dogmatic inviolability and/or immunity to questioning as proving themselves false (unless a mechanism by which such questioning statements nullify or contradict themselves is clearly demonstrated, which is not the case here).

P253 "the question of how the continuation of life is possible" seems to me the domain of biology rather than philosophy.

P253 bottom: "(...) thought must (...) recognize the value of the existence of thought." This can only be done by thoroughly questioning thought itself and its foundation - however, that seems to be forbidden by the previously stated dogma, so you're contradicting yourself.

P256 bottom: you state that existence and essence are the same. I don't agree. I do agree to what you write next, that essence and existence need each other and each of them cannot exist without the other, but that still doesn't make them the same.

Please elaborate on this: explain how and why existence can be equalised with essence and vice versa in your view.

I think essence is the collection of the 'essential' or core properties of something (or someone), while existence refers to having been actualized from potential to reality, or in other words, to being. Existence is something (a property) which the whole thing either has or hasn't, while essence, although it is the most important part of something, is still only a part, not the whole thing. Essence determines what something is, existence determines if something is.

P257 conditions without existence is not absurd at all but very much thinkable: when nothing meets the existing conditions, there is no existence. For example, no humans meet the conditions for being able to fly (like having wings and being light enough etc), so there is no existence of the human capacity to fly.

P257 what exactly is the difference between your Instance archetype/Exemplar and instance/exemplar package on the one side, and Plato's idea and form on the other? And how do both of these pairs differ from essence and phenomenon, or from universal and particular?

P257 you mention time and space as conjugate quantities. This is incorrect. In standard physics, time is conjugate with energy and space is conjugate to momentum. If this is not a mistake but intentional, please explain why and how time and space are conjugate.

P259 "If (...) accidentally, then (...) also (...)." The opposite is true: the other major civilizations would have discovered science only if it were inevitable; if it were accidental, then no one can know if they would ever also discover it.

P297 "without the possibility [I'd say concept] of non-being, we cannot use being to indicate anything". Indeed. In exactly the same way, without the relative, we cannot use the absolute to indicate anything.

PP297-298 there's a much simpler proof than the three arguments you give: potential precedes existence; from there it directly follows that the absolute precedes being.

P298 of course we can ask if the absolute exists. Why do you think/say we can't? Why wouldn't we be able to ask "does my mother exist?"? Can we ask "does god exist?"?

P298 being is not a noun, but a verb.

PP299-300 I think you're confusing time itself with the concept of time. The concept of time can be seen to be absolute in the same sense that Plato's Forms are absolute: only as an abstract essence, not as the thing itself. Merely being able to generalize from the relative (concrete) time of individuals to the abstract (absolute) essence of the concept of time does not make time itself absolute. Following this reasoning, one can declare any generalized abstract concept as being absolute, so this proves nothing.

Time itself cannot be seen as absolute as it was shown to be relative by Einstein's relativity theory, as you mention yourself two paragraphs later.

P300 time is not an attribute within things; rather, things exist within time, just as they do within space.

P300 things can exist without time (in complete inertia), but time cannot exist without things, for it would be meaningless. Time is defined by change (as you implicitly mention yourself), which is impossible if no things exist. Therefore, contrary to what you write, space precedes time.

P301 "when a conscious object exists in consciousness, does this object have space? Clearly it does not." How so? I disagree. Clearly it does have space, even physically (as you also mention a bit further), namely in the brain of the conscious being aware of the object in question, and secondly also abstractly, as occupying part of the awareness/consciousness of the consciousness (i.e. being) that is aware of it.

P301 occupying space does not mean being incompressible. At all. Many things occupying space are compressible. For example, a neutron star is compressible into a black hole. Argue for your claim.

P301 I fail to see the connection between imagining large or tiny things and being tired or relaxed. Please elaborate.

Imagining an object like the sun vs micro-organisms could very well occupy exactly the same space in our brains/consciousness, for example analogous to one entity taking the space of one bit when saved on a computer.

P302 Instancology does not make infinite things finite. Apparently, infinite things make Instancology wrong.

P306 "thought is identical to the world" Please argue/explain.

P309 by defining god as an embodiment, do you see it as physically existing?

P310 what's the connection between "motion produces matter" and god?

P314 zero can very well be considered a natural number; there's no unanimity on this matter.

P315 there is a logical necessity in the relationship between to be and the absolute: the absolute cannot not be, or it wouldn't be absolute. Also, the relative exists (or "is"), therefore the absolute also has to exist or to be.

P315 to be is existence - or at least potential. How does a declarative sentence violate the meaning of "to be"?

P316 "to be" does have an opposite: "to not be"

P323 your classification of determinate being contains the number 5 twice

P326 5.1 are you stating that when I think of something, I can interchange position with it? If so, please explain how. If not, please explain what you do mean then by statement 5.1 (the first 5.1, as 5.1 appears three times in your enumeration).

P327 further in your enumeration, you jump from 5.98 to 7.3. What's with the numbers in-between?

P328 "The development of consciousness (...) is an advanced stage of the development of consciousness itself." This is circular and means nothing.

P329 "if we could control our thoughts (...), if we could command our brain to think whatever it wants (...)" We can control our thoughts, though not all the time. It is true that some thoughts arrive seemingly out of nowhere when we let our mind wander. But we sure can deliberately decide to think a certain thought at a specific moment (as long as we have the time and our mind is not occupied with thoughts forced on us from the outside, like it is when we're at work, during a conversation or in an emergency situation). I can for example consciously decide to think the thought that black cats are more beautiful than white cats at exactly 5 o'clock this evening. Whereupon I can as easily decide to think that white cats are more beautiful than black cats five minutes later. I can even repeat thinking these thoughts at any desired moment.

P329 How and why does being able to completely control your own thoughts make you a robot? I think it's just the opposite, it would make you more human, and maybe even a better human.

You state several times that "nothingness produces being" (p329) or that "being comes from non-being". Through which mechanism exactly is this done?

P331 "monkeys becoming humans" this is a persistent (and often deliberate), deeply mistaken misrepresentation of evolution.

Never has any monkey become a human, nor did humans evolve from monkeys. Humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor which was not a monkey.

If you want to stand a chance for your work to be taken seriously in general but certainly in the academic world, get the science right. This kind of blunders needs to be avoided completely or else you lose all credibility (see also your misstatement of the uncertainty principle mentioned earlier).

P348-349 you do it again

P379 "that is to say (...) throw it to us" This has some implications: here you define god as an entity, a concrete being, a personal god. It further also follows however that this god is not all-knowing and therefore not perfect; that this god experiences and is subject to time; and that apparently this god exists to find out and fulfill human needs. This seems to be quite different from how you define god on p309.

P382 what exactly do you mean by the electron cloud? Please define this concept.

P423 you say that thought doesn't influence any other body parts than the brain. What about a consciously chosen and executed command of my brain to move my hand? Caused by my decision, which clearly is a thought, there's actually a neurological signal travelling from the brain to the hand, resulting in contraction of certain muscles, thus producing movement.

On p450 you explain this yourself. So how does that agree with this statement?

P428 typo: "Da-Sien"

P444 last paragraph is a repetition of p439-440

---

General remarks after finishing reading:

Overall, the book was very readable, using clear language and not too complex to follow (this goes for the language as well as for most concepts).

However, maybe I don't understand everything in your document deeply enough yet,but as a whole it is unconvincing to me. In my view, it doesn't realize its steep ambitions nor justify most of its ambitious claims.

Some parts are very clear and readable, and much of the history of philosophy treated in it was quite interesting. Your work taught me at least a thing or two, which I appreciate and thank you for. But although the document in general wasn't very heavy reading to me, too many parts of it seem confused or even confounded, which makes me doubt the total coherence of the book in general. Furthermore, some parts don't seem to be relevant or to even belong in this work at all. I also feel like many of your concepts aren't explained thoroughly enough and should be elaborated and further clarified, made more explicit.

I intend to read the book again in a while and see if I will understand more of it then. If you're interested, I can make another document with my second reading's remarks - probably will do so anyway. Thanks for your attention and possible reaction to this document.

Sincere greetings,

Hilko Peters (aka Βενιαμ?ν Τροβ?τω on Facebook)