Instancology: A Structured Overview

1) Core concepts & definitions

Central thesis.

Reality is best understood as an Instance—a self-identical Whole that issues and governs its parts. Every analysis must respect a two-level architecture: an A-level (Absolute-related constraints) that preconditions and controls a R-level (Relative manifestations). This resolves perennial confusions (paradox, causality, life/mind vs matter, culture vs individuals) by keeping Whole/Part and Absolute/Relative relations explicit and ordered.

Key terms (ordered so relations are clear):

AA (Absolutely Absolute). The issuer of instances; not inside any instance; non-spatiotemporal, non-relational. AA is not an object, set, or cause among others; it is the meta-source that issues a Whole. AA is not derivable from within an instance.

Instance (𝓘). The total, unique Whole that AA issues. It includes everything “of” our reality. An instance is closed as a Whole but contains internal distinctions.

A-level / R-level. A convenient two-tier shorthand:

A-level = {AA, RA}. Concerns issuance and Absolute-related constraints.

R-level = {AR, RR}. Concerns relative, spatiotemporal, concrete manifestations.

RA (Relatively Absolute). In-instance, formless universals/constraints that shape forms without themselves being spatial or temporal. In this instance, laws, logic, mathematics, and life are RA: universal, level-setting, not made of parts, yet operative within 𝓘.

AR (Absolutely Relative). The frontier where RA constraints “touch” relative substrates—think boundary conditions, symmetries, codes, grammars, genotype-level rules, measurement settings. AR is the interface that applies A-level constraint to R-level material.

RR (Relatively Relative). Concrete, many-part, spatiotemporal phenomena: organisms, societies, sentences, lab events, economies—everything that “happens.”

Micro World / Macro World. Within an instance, the Micro World is the timeless structural layer (pattern/constraint order; RA+AR’s invariant backbone). The Macro World is the temporal unfolding of concrete events (RR). Macro must pass; Micro remains.

Wholeness vs Parts. Wholeness (the Instance as Whole) precedes and controls its parts. This is the key reversal from naive aggregation. Parts express the Whole’s constraints rather than compose it.

Necessity vs Contingency. Necessity = features tied to Wholeness/A-level (architecture, invariants). Contingency = features of parts at R-level (local configurations).

Formless being. An A-level reality that structures forms without itself having form (e.g., logic, lawfulness, life-principle).

Uniqueness Principle. Each instance is a unique Whole. Two instances cannot be numerically the same Whole. Similar parts do not defeat Whole-uniqueness.

Rebirth Principle. When a system’s Wholeness (its governing schema) reconfigures, its parts reorganize—yielding discontinuous qualitative transformation (e.g., a mind, culture, or organism “reboots” to a new attractor).

Reverse Principle. To understand any system, analysis must proceed both bottom-up and top-down; crucially, the top-down (Whole→Part) direction is primary, because constraints (A-level) select and shape feasible part-configurations (R-level).

2+1 Structure. A minimal structural summary: (Micro + Macro) + Issuer = (A-conditioned structure + temporal unfolding) + AA.

4×4×4 Application Frame. A practical extension aligning (i) Ontological Layer (AA/RA/AR/RR), with (ii) Cognitive Mode (intuitive, rational, empirical, integrative), and (iii) Faculty (perception, language, logic/math, action). It’s a grid for mapping methods to layers without category mistakes.

---

2) Principles & axioms

A1. Issuance. AA issues Instances. This is not a temporal event; it is the primordial fact that a Whole obtains.

A2. Closure of the Whole. An Instance is self-identical and unique; it is not reducible to a mere sum of parts.

A3. Level order. A-level (AA/RA) preconditions and constrains R-level (AR/RR). Constraint precedence is fundamental.

A4. RA invariants. Laws, logic, mathematics, and life are RA in this instance: universal, in-instance, formless, and invariant across RR variations.

A5. Space-time belongs to parts. Spatiotemporal dimensions are embodiments of parts (R-level). Time and space are not properties of AA or RA.

A6. Necessity controls contingency. What is necessary (A-level) selects and bounds what is contingent (R-level).

A7. Other instances are inaccessible from within. From inside 𝓘, we cannot step outside to compare Instances; talk of others is, at best, meta-theoretical.

A8. Wholeness causation (top-down priority). Explanations that omit Whole→Part constraint are incomplete.

A9. Language limits. Language is RR; it cannot fully capture A-level reality, though it can consistently track it via disciplined mappings.

A10. Rebirth/Reverse as methods. Deep change proceeds by schema-level (A-level) reconfiguration (Rebirth) and by bi-directional analysis with Whole→Part priority (Reverse).

A simple working rule:

Let C_A be A-level constraints, S_R R-level states, and E a lawful evolution on R-level. Then:

S_R^{(t+1)} = E\big(S_R^{(t)} \,\big|\, C_A\big)

---

3) Scope & applications

Intended scope. Metaphysics and methodology for any domain with Whole/Part structure: physics (experiments, symmetries), biology (morphogenesis, life), cognition/language, culture/society, mathematics/logic (foundations), and cross-cultural analysis.

Problems addressed (indicative):

Paradox management (e.g., Russell-type self-reference): avoid cross-level category mistakes.

Life’s status: why “life” behaves lawfully yet is not reducible to mere chemistry (life as RA).

Quantum perplexities: why whole-experiment constraints matter (AR boundary conditions).

Morphogenesis/teleology: why cells in a foot grow toes, not eyes—organismal wholeness constrains differentiation.

Language learning/cognition: how meanings (A/AR) can be preserved while symbols (RR) switch.

Civilizational analysis: how cultural Wholes govern institutional and individual parts.

Concrete application (biology: morphogenesis).

1. Identify levels.

RA: life-principle + organismal form constraints.

AR: regulatory codes/fields (gene networks, gradients, boundary conditions).

RR: cells, tissues, morphologies in time.

2. Explain patterning. The organism’s Wholeness imposes constraints on feasible local differentiations; gene expression is not a free combinatorics but a constrained search respecting body-plan.

3. Predictive posture. Perturbations that preserve A/AR constraints yield robust RR outcomes (canalization). Perturbations that alter AR boundary conditions (e.g., organizer transplants) can re-map fate, consistent with Whole→Part control.

Concrete application (language learning by “symbol switch”).

1. Meanings (conceptual invariants) live at A/AR; surface tokens live at RR.

2. Preserve A/AR; switch RR symbols → faster acquisition.

3. Test: curriculum that anchors meaning graphs (A/AR) while swapping forms should outperform memorization-first curricula.

Concrete application (quantum delayed-choice, conceptually).

1. Treat full experimental arrangement (including measurement choice) as AR boundary condition.

2. Outcomes (RR) respect Whole-of-experiment constraints; no need for retro-causal “signals,” only top-down constraint consistency.

3. This is interpretive, not a new equation; it is a map preventing cross-level confusions.

---

4) Evidence & support

Basis. Primarily logical-structural and phenomenological (keeping categories straight), plus consilience across domains where top-down constraint shows explanatory power.

Supportive patterns you should expect if Instancology tracks reality:

Robustness under constraint. Systems show stability when A/AR is preserved, even with RR noise (e.g., biological canalization; grammaticality judgments despite surface variation).

Boundary-condition sensitivity. Changing AR (context/measurement/setup) reconfigures RR distributions in lawful ways (from physics labs to behavioral tasks).

Cross-domain isomorphy. The same Whole→Part schema clarifies paradoxes in logic, morphogenesis in biology, and context effects in cognition.

What would count against it (falsification-style pressures):

Successful, complete bottom-up closures that explain away all top-down effects across mature domains (physics→life→mind) without remainder.

In-instance variance of RA invariants. If the logic/lawfulness/life-principle within our instance demonstrably changes over time as if they were RR phenomena, Instancology (as stated) is wrong or mis-specified.

Cross-level confusion yielding better predictions. If models that treat A-level realities as RR objects systematically outperform level-disciplined models across domains, Instancology’s methodological claim weakens.

Research programs (operationalization):

Biology: manipulate AR boundary conditions (e.g., organizer fields, bioelectric patterns) to steer RR outcomes; quantify constraint maps.

Cognition: hold meanings constant (A/AR graphs), swap RR tokens; measure acceleration and retention.

Physics (interpretive discipline): design analyses that keep Whole-of-experiment at AR; check if this reduces paradoxical readings without sacrificing predictive success.

---

5) Historical context & comparisons

Author & date. Instancology (範例哲學) is developed by Wade Y. Dong, consolidated in 2024–2025 (English book Instancology, 2025 edition).

Builds on / reframes:

Plato/Plotinus: a “One” beyond being—parallels AA; Instancology makes the issuance relation explicit and separates RA (formless in-instance universals) from AA.

Aristotle: form/matter & teleology—retained as Whole→Part constraint, but generalized and level-disciplined.

Descartes/Kant/Hegel: mind–world split, conditions of experience, dialectic—absorbed as partial insights tied to layers; Instancology avoids their cross-level elisions.

Analytic turns (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein): language/logic primacy—repositioned as RA/RR tools inside 𝓘; language can’t capture AA and must respect level order.

Gödel & paradox: self-reference issues are treated as level-confusions; keep A/R layers distinct to neutralize vicious loops.

Distinctives vs modern theories:

Against reductionisms (physicalist or cultural): insists on irreducible A-level constraint.

Against romantic holisms: provides a precise layer model to keep “wholeness” from becoming mysticism.

Against linguistic idealism: language is RR and bounded; it tracks but does not constitute A-level reality.

---

One-page mental model

1. AA issues a unique Instance (𝓘).

2. Inside 𝓘, RA (formless universals: law, logic, math, life) constrain AR interfaces (codes, boundary conditions).

3. RR phenomena (what happens) unfold in space-time under those constraints.

4. Wholeness precedes parts. Necessity (A-level) governs contingency (R-level).

5. Deep change = Rebirth (schema-level reconfiguration).

6. Sound method = Reverse (always include Whole→Part control alongside Part→Whole aggregation).

7. 2+1 and 4×4×4 are shorthand blueprints for building analyses without category errors