The hole paradox I came up with myself

[Echogem222]

(Note: Many people only skim read this post, or only read the paradox part, thinking, "oh, I get it, this isn't a paradox!" Then comment without even reading the whole post, not understanding the correct context of the paradox because the solution to the paradox helps with understanding the right context. I know this because I've posted this post on other websites, and because that's what people have already done in this thread.)

The Paradox (edited for clarity):
The hole paradox arises from a misconception about the nature of empty space. While a hole might initially seem to be just empty space, it is not a true void but rather a space defined by its lack of something, such as the absence of material or substance. This leads to a paradox: How can we define a hole as a type of nothing when empty space itself is considered a positive value?

In traditional ontology, objects are typically defined by their properties and characteristics. However, a hole lacks these defining properties and exists as a space where something could be, but isn't. This raises the question: How can something that appears to be nothing have properties?

This paradox challenges our understanding of identity and existence by highlighting the complexities of defining and understanding concepts that are defined by their negation or absence.

+++

Solution:
A "hole" is a word which is used for two different things, but people often think you can use the word hole to mean both of those two different things at the same time (which is the absence of dirt and the ground around the hole affecting the value of the hole).

In math, a hole would not be the dirt around the hole when trying to figure out how much dirt you have in a certain space, it would be 0 (because you cannot understand it as being dirt). But if you're trying to figure out how much space you have available, it would be a positive value (something you understand as being available space), and the dirt would be 0 (something you don't understand as being available space). However, in the case of the hole being a positive value in math, the dirt around the hole would be right next to the borders of the hole, giving the dimensions needed to understand the amount of space in the hole via math formulas. But even in that situation, the dirt is not something you understand as a positive value, it's the exact point that you can't understand which causes you to "see" the dimensions of the hole via the max limit of the space available (the edges of the space).

But if you mix those two types of holes up, you see it as both a positive and non-value, or in other words, a type of nothing you understand, which is illogical because nothing is the absence of understanding.

 

[Tiberius]

Why is it hard to describe a particular volume by what it lacks? Why is it so unusual to say, "In the beach there is a volume of one meter by one meter where the sand has been removed"?

 

[Echogem222]

Why is it hard to describe a particular volume by what it lacks? Why is it so unusual to say, "In the beach there is a volume of one meter by one meter where the sand has been removed"?

When you remove sand what remains? What you don't understand is sand. So in that specific context, the lack of sand is that which you don't understand. But outside of that context, you understand that lack of sand as being empty space. The context is key here, because in the different contexts of a hole, there are two different types of holes as I explained.

 

[McBell]

How can you define something by what it lacks?

Spoiler: Spade

Spaying is the removal of the ovaries and usually the uterus of a female animal.

Spoiler: Neutered

Neutering is the removal of the testes in a male animal.

 

[Echogem222]

Spoiler: Spade

Spaying is the removal of the ovaries and usually the uterus of a female animal.

Spoiler: Neutered

Neutering is the removal of the testes in a male animal.

You didn't read my entire post, you at best skim read it, so please quit spamming the comments or I'll report you.

 

[McBell]

You didn't read my entire post, you at best skim read it, so please quit spamming the comments or I'll report you.

if it makes you feel better, you go with that.

Personally I think you are just upset that your OP was destroyed with a single word not once, not twice, but four times off the top of my head.

I will even delete the first two to help you save face.

 

[Stevicus]

The Paradox:
Imagine trying to define a hole. You might think of it as an empty space, but then you realize that it's not just any empty space—it's a space defined by its lack of something, like the absence of dirt for example. This leads to a paradox: How can you define something by what it lacks?

You might try to give the hole properties, like size or shape, but these properties seem to belong to the surrounding material, not to the hole itself. So, the paradox arises: How can something that seems to be nothing have properties?

This paradox challenges our understanding of identity and existence. It suggests that holes, despite being defined by their lack of substance, may still have a kind of existence or identity of their own. This paradox highlights the complexities of defining and understanding concepts that are defined by their negation or absence.

+++

Solution:
A "hole" is a word which is used for two different things, but people often think you can use the word hole to mean both of those two different things at the same time (which is the absence of dirt and the ground around the hole affecting the value of the hole).

In math, a hole would not be the dirt around the hole when trying to figure out how much dirt you have in a certain space, it would be 0 (because you cannot understand it as being dirt). But if you're trying to figure out how much space you have available, it would be a positive value (something you understand as being available space), and the dirt would be 0 (something you don't understand as being available space). However, in the case of the hole being a positive value in math, the dirt around the hole would be right next to the borders of the hole, giving the dimensions needed to understand the amount of space in the hole via math formulas. But even in that situation, the dirt is not something you understand as a positive value, it's the exact point that you can't understand which causes you to "see" the dimensions of the hole via the max limit of the space available (the edges of the space).

But if you mix those two types of holes up, you see it as both a positive and non-value, or in other words, a type of nothing you understand, which is illogical because nothing is the absence of understanding.

I would see it more as a description of a passage, such as a hole in a wall. Or maybe a hole in a ground, allowing movement into the ground. I would agree that there'd have to be something around it to define the nature and size of the hole.

 

[Echogem222]

I would see it more as a description of a passage, such as a hole in a wall. Or maybe a hole in a ground, allowing movement into the ground. I would agree that there'd have to be something around it to define the nature and size of the hole.

So you're saying you partially disagree with me? I'm sorry I'm asking for clarification, but I've posted this on other websites, and misunderstood points people were trying to make, so I just want to make sure I understand you're partially disagreeing with me or not.

 

[ChristineM]

There are two kinds on nothing, nothing with dimensions as in your hole which can fill with air, light can pass through it etc. so it can be described as a hole of dimensions x, y, z.

or there is complete nothing, a nothing that even light cannot pass through, nothing without even the concept of dimensions.

 

[HonestJoe]

Imagine trying to define a hole.

Most words have multiple legitimate meanings, depending on context, intent and often, perception. The word "hole" is very much an example of that.

In common usage though, I suggest "hole" is less a thing in itself but more a property of an object. The hole doesn't simply exist, something has a hole in it. For example, if you have a ring donut, you would say it has a hole in it but if you cut it vertically in half, you just have two curved tubes and no hole. The air that formed the hole is still there, as is the material of the donut, the only change is the shape of the material. The hole didn't exist as a separate object, it was just a property the ring donut had which the two cut halves don't. (And if you cut the donut in half horizontally, you end up with two rings each with their own hole!)

I think there is limited philosophical point to this (certainly in the direction you're looking), since you're somewhat mixing how we perceive or describe things and how things physically exist. Whether we call something a hole or not (or multiple holes) doesn't change the thing we're describing. In contexts where it matters, like formal geometry, they do have specific and detailed definitions for things like holes (which can be somewhat illogical to the layperson). For anything else, context and clear intent largely cover any confusion, regardless of what the thing/property being described actually is.

 

[Stevicus]

So you're saying you partially disagree with me? I'm sorry I'm asking for clarification, but I've posted this on other websites, and misunderstood points people were trying to make, so I just want to make sure I understand you're partially disagreeing with me or not.

I'm saying that I agree that the hole is defined by what's around it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Paradox:
Imagine trying to define a hole. You might think of it as an empty space, but then you realize that it's not just any empty space—it's a space defined by its lack of something, like the absence of dirt for example. This leads to a paradox: How can you define something by what it lacks?

You just did.
So no paradox.

 

[Echogem222]

I'm saying that I agree that the hole is defined by what's around it.

In other words, you didn't read my whole post before commenting? Because the solution to the paradox does actually seem to add context to people who didn't originally understand the context of the paradox.

 

[Echogem222]

You just did.
So no paradox.

Reading the solution of the paradox adds context to the paradox, which based on your argument implies you only skim read it at best.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Paradox:
Imagine trying to define a hole. You might think of it as an empty space, but then you realize that it's not just any empty space—it's a space defined by its lack of something, like the absence of dirt for example. This leads to a paradox: How can you define something by what it lacks?

You might try to give the hole properties, like size or shape, but these properties seem to belong to the surrounding material, not to the hole itself. So, the paradox arises: How can something that seems to be nothing have properties?

This paradox challenges our understanding of identity and existence. It suggests that holes, despite being defined by their lack of substance, may still have a kind of existence or identity of their own. This paradox highlights the complexities of defining and understanding concepts that are defined by their negation or absence.

+++

Solution:
A "hole" is a word which is used for two different things, but people often think you can use the word hole to mean both of those two different things at the same time (which is the absence of dirt and the ground around the hole affecting the value of the hole).

In math, a hole would not be the dirt around the hole when trying to figure out how much dirt you have in a certain space, it would be 0 (because you cannot understand it as being dirt). But if you're trying to figure out how much space you have available, it would be a positive value (something you understand as being available space), and the dirt would be 0 (something you don't understand as being available space). However, in the case of the hole being a positive value in math, the dirt around the hole would be right next to the borders of the hole, giving the dimensions needed to understand the amount of space in the hole via math formulas. But even in that situation, the dirt is not something you understand as a positive value, it's the exact point that you can't understand which causes you to "see" the dimensions of the hole via the max limit of the space available (the edges of the space).

But if you mix those two types of holes up, you see it as both a positive and non-value, or in other words, a type of nothing you understand, which is illogical because nothing is the absence of understanding.

A hole can be accurately defined by its edges.
A hole is rarely empty so can also be defined but the volume of its potential or actual contents.

 

[wellwisher]

Differential thinking defines things based on how they differ. Integral thinking defines things more in terms of what they have in common. In this case, substance and lack of substance; hole, is how they differ, so they can show up together to make each more distinct.

The paradox appears if we use integral thinking. In integral thinking the hole has much more in common with void, zero, nothing, space, empty, etc. and not with any measure of substance. In that case, hole does not belong connected to substance.

 

[Echogem222]

Most words have multiple legitimate meanings, depending on context, intent and often, perception. The word "hole" is very much an example of that.

In common usage though, I suggest "hole" is less a thing in itself but more a property of an object. The hole doesn't simply exist, something has a hole in it. For example, if you have a ring donut, you would say it has a hole in it but if you cut it vertically in half, you just have two curved tubes and no hole. The air that formed the hole is still there, as is the material of the donut, the only change is the shape of the material. The hole didn't exist as a separate object, it was just a property the ring donut had which the two cut halves don't. (And if you cut the donut in half horizontally, you end up with two rings each with their own hole!)

The issue here is that you're not understanding the hole as being both the object around the hole and the air inside of the object at the same time. Because when you're trying to understand air, you are understanding the inside of the object as a positive value, but when you're understanding the object and not the air within, you're understanding the air within as a non-value. If you did both at the same time, then there would be no hole because either the object would have no air in it, or it would just be air and no object.

I think there is limited philosophical point to this (certainly in the direction you're looking), since you're somewhat mixing how we perceive or describe things and how things physically exist. Whether we call something a hole or not (or multiple holes) doesn't change the thing we're describing. In contexts where it matters, like formal geometry, they do have specific and detailed definitions for things like holes (which can be somewhat illogical to the layperson). For anything else, context and clear intent largely cover any confusion, regardless of what the thing/property being described actually is.

No, you're just not understanding the paradox correctly. So you may want to go back and re-read it. And I did make an edit at the top, but hopefully that edit doesn't apply to you.

 

[Echogem222]

A hole can be accurately defined by its edges.
A hole is rarely empty so can also be defined but the volume of its potential or actual contents.

Tell me then, when you jump into a perfectly square hole to measure it, do you push your measuring tool into the dirt in order to measure the edges of the hole? If true, how far do you push in?

Also, please re-read the edit I made on the top of my post. PLEASE.

 

[Stevicus]

In other words, you didn't read my whole post before commenting? Because the solution to the paradox does actually seem to add context to people who didn't originally understand the context of the paradox.

Well, I did read the post.

If you're talking about "nothing" as in just a section of empty space with nothing else but empty space around it, then it wouldn't be a "hole," but it would just be space.

 

[Echogem222]

You just did.
So no paradox.

Please re-read the top of my post, I just made an edit there I think you should read.