The inference from 'not instantiated in the physical world' to 'must be transcendent' illicitly conflates absence of actual instantiation with absence of immanent ontological grounding.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Ontological: "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
grounding(Drawn from contemporary metaphysics; proposed as potentially applicable to understanding the foundations of legality.): A metaphysical relation in which some entities or facts are more foundational than others, providing a hierarchical structure of the world.
immanent(Rickert's epistemological framework): To carry the form of being-conscious (Bewußtheit), as understood relative to the epistemological subject

Based on where you are in your exploration