The hole paradox I came up with myself

[HonestJoe]

No, that's not what I'm doing. What everyone else is doing is not giving me enough information for me to change my views. If you don't understand this, I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore.

Or could it be that "they've explained it to you as clearly as they reasonably can, and you still don't get it."?

You see, nobody is really disagreeing with the fundamental observations you're making about the nature of "holes", they're just looking to build on those observations to have less of a paradox and more of just different ways of thinking and talking about concepts for different purpose. Scientists and philosophers will talk about holes in completely different (potentially even contradictory) ways to, say, road-builders or doctors. All ways can be perfectly valid and meaningful in the contexts their used though.

 

[Echogem222]

Or could it be that "they've explained it to you as clearly as they reasonably can, and you still don't get it."?

That is what I'm saying, they could be saying that, but I don't know that, therefore that does not equal them being correct as you are implying.

You see, nobody is really disagreeing with the fundamental observations you're making about the nature of "holes", they're just looking to build on those observations to have less of a paradox and more of just different ways of thinking and talking about concepts for different purpose. Scientists and philosophers will talk about holes in completely different (potentially even contradictory) ways to, say, road-builders or doctors. All ways can be perfectly valid and meaningful in the contexts their used though.

No, there are people in this thread and on other websites I've posted this on who do disagree with me about the observations I've made of holes.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is what I'm saying, they could be saying that, but I don't know that, therefore that does not equal them being correct as you are implying.

You're never going to find out if their correct or not if you just dismiss anything you don't want to hear out of hand as them "not understanding". I'm not expecting you to blindly accept anything anyone else says is true or that anything you've said is false, only for you to truly accept the possibility on some points.

No, there are people in this thread and on other websites I've posted this on who do disagree with me about the observations I've made of holes.

I think pretty much everyone accepts the core points, about how a hole is defined on the basis of the absence of material and the presence of space at the same time, and the element of logical contradiction that could imply. What people are questioning is the nature and significance of that apparent contradiction and how it can be (and actually is in practice) managed.

A single hole can be conceptually recognised as both an absence of material and the presence of space (and potentially in other ways too), but we simply choose to consider whichever is most relevant to the context in which we're addressing the hole. If you're a driver approaching a pothole, you're interested in the size and shape of the space in the road but if you're the crew repairing the road, you're interested in the amount of material needed to fill it. It's the same hole, and could even be the same person, the difference in perception is just the context.

 

[Echogem222]

You're never going to find out if their correct or not if you just dismiss anything you don't want to hear out of hand as them "not understanding". I'm not expecting you to blindly accept anything anyone else says is true or that anything you've said is false, only for you to truly accept the possibility on some points.

Did you not read what I responded with??? "That is what I'm saying, [[they could be saying that]], but I don't know that, therefore that does not equal them being correct as you are implying." This part [[they could be saying that]] means that yes, I could be possibly wrong, but I need to see enough evidence provided for me to believe that I am wrong.

I think pretty much everyone accepts the core points, about how a hole is defined on the basis of the absence of material and the presence of space at the same time, and the element of logical contradiction that could imply. What people are questioning is the nature and significance of that apparent contradiction and how it can be (and actually is in practice) managed.

You think?? I literally told you people on other websites that is not the case, unless you are referring to just the post on this website, what you're saying is utterly ridiculous.

A single hole can be conceptually recognized as both an absence of material and the presence of space (and potentially in other ways too), but we simply choose to consider whichever is most relevant to the context in which we're addressing the hole. If you're a driver approaching a pothole, you're interested in the size and shape of the space in the road but if you're the crew repairing the road, you're interested in the amount of material needed to fill it. It's the same hole, and could even be the same person, the difference in perception is just the context.

That is what I have been basically saying all this time, yet you're somehow against what I'm saying?? I'm sorry, but I feel like you're a troll, so I'm going to block you.