Speaking colloquially, holes exist, but in reality, they are an absence - like shadows, and darkness, which are similarly absences (tip of the hat to Augustine, 'doctrine of privation'.)

To be is to be the value of a variable. — Moliere

I confess I have never understood this in the least. Bound variables are part of symbolic representations, not the things themselves. A cat is the value of a bound variable as in "Exists(x) such that x is a cat," but I find this very unconvincing. The cat is a cat long before there are logicians to invent quantified logic. I just don't understand this kind of thinking. Must be me. A lot of this kind of philosophical discourse just goes right over my head.

Is the question whether holes exist? They most definitely do. Mathematically, if you poke a hole in the x-y plane, then loops around the can no longer be contracted to a point. The hole has changed the topology of the plane. Holes are a huge area of study in math. In algebraic topology they try to find clever ways to count the number of holes in an object. Holes are a thing, not just an absence of a thing.

And of course we have the great scene in Cool Hand Luke.

Boss Paul:
That ditch is Boss Kean's ditch. And I told him that dirt in it's your dirt. What's your dirt doin' in his ditch?

Luke:
I don't know, Boss.

Boss Paul:
You better get in there and get it out, boy.

Holes are things. They have existence.

But they have the characteristic of only existing within or as a part of something. You can’t have a hole that exists on its own, whereas you can have an object that exists on its own. So a hole has to be an attribute of something, it can’t have independent existence.

But they have the characteristic of only existing within or as a part of something. You can’t have a hole that exists on its own, whereas you can have an object that exists on its own. So a hole has to be an attribute of something, it can’t have independent existence. — Wayfarer

Hmmm. I will have to think about that, it's a good point. SEP has an article on the subject.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holes/

They even made your point: "Holes are ontologically parasitic: they are always in something else and cannot exist in isolation. (‘There is no such thing as a hole by itself’, Tucholsky 1931.)"

Trying to think of other things that are ontologically parasitic. Shadows, say. Shadows definitely exist but never without a thing to block the light. What kind of existence do shadows have? They're a lot like holes. Here's an article on the philosophy of shadows.

https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-philosophy-of-shadows/

It's a review of a book, Seeing Dark Things: The Philosophy of Shadows.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12858037-seeing-dark-things

What other things are like shadows and holes, things with a tenuous claim on existence, things that are ontologically parasitic?

So does that mean they don't exist, or do? Philosophically, say.

I confess I have never understood this in the least. Bound variables are part of symbolic representations, not the things themselves. A cat is the value of a bound variable as in "Exists(x) such that x is a cat," but I find this very unconvincing. The cat is a cat long before there are logicians to invent quantified logic. I just don't understand this kind of thinking. Must be me. A lot of this kind of philosophical discourse just goes right over my head. — fishfry

I'm just leaping from that point, more than anything. Similarly so with the argument I'm presenting -- I think it's an interesting puzzle. I don't mean to dig into Quine.

Is the question whether holes exist? They most definitely do. Mathematically, if you poke a hole in the x-y plane, then loops around the can no longer be contracted to a point. The hole has changed the topology of the plane. Holes are a huge area of study in math. In algebraic topology they try to find clever ways to count the number of holes in an object. Holes are a thing, not just an absence of a thing. — fishfry

Yes, exactly. I'll try to edit it to make that clearer.




It seems you've changed your stance after your exchange with Wayfarer?

As I said - colloquially, they do, or as a matter of everyday speech. 'Does that kind of cheese have holes?' or 'did a hole exist where the witness reported hearing the gunshot?' are perfectly reasonable questions. But when you consider the sense in which holes (or absences) exist, then you're asking a question about their real nature, and that is what seems to me they don't have.

So it's an unexpectedly deep question, I think (although maybe you did expect it!)

I don't mean to dig into Quine — Moliere

Yes I understand that. It's just that I've heard that particular saying before, and I genuinely don't understand it.

It seems you've changed your stance after your exchange with Wayfarer? — Moliere

No, I think holes exist, and so do shadows. There are things that exist and that only appear along with more substantial things. Holes and shadows being the two that come to mind. Ontologically parasitic, what a great phrase.

I think holes exist though. I haven't had a chance to read the SEP article yet. But there's too much math around the question of identifying and counting holes for me to doubt their existence. But it's a tricky question. Also the question raised by Cool Hand Luke is a good one. Before you dug a hole in the ground, was that hole already there, waiting to be dug out? If not, and you dig it out, you end up with a hole and a pile of dirt. You can't say the pile exists but not the hole. They're sort of like the electron/positron pairs that get spontaneously created in quantum physics. They come into existence in pairs. Piles and holes. You can't say one exists and not the other, can you?

But when you consider the sense in which holes (or absences) exist, then you're asking a question about their real nature, and that is what seems to me they don't have. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is the sense in which I am asking.

So it's an unexpectedly deep question, I think (although maybe you did expect it!)

I suspected it :D

I heard some philosopher talking about it once, and once they did (i forget who it was....) I began to see the contours of a philosophical puzzle.

Yes I understand that. It's just that I've heard that particular saying before, and I genuinely don't understand it. — fishfry

Oh, it comes from Quine's On What There Is, if you haven't read it. I have a hand-wavey understanding of it in the sense that I've read a bit of and about Quine.

No, I think holes exist, and so do shadows. There are things that exist and that only appear along with more substantial things. Holes and shadows being the two that come to mind. Ontologically parasitic, what a great phrase.

I think holes exist though. I haven't had a chance to read the SEP article yet. But there's too much math around the question of identifying and counting holes for me to doubt their existence. — fishfry

See, for me at least, the mathematical part is a little less convincing. That would mean that holes exist in the same way that numbers do, and I am less confident when it comes to my beliefs about the ontology of abstract objects.

But the things I see, so I believe, exist.

But, like you said, holes are weird in that they are an absence -- there's not really a property of holes, is there? Maybe size, for any individual hole. But you can make a hole out of anything. And it certainly isn't a thing.

I have a hunch that this question is connected to the historical reason why the numeral for zero (0) was neglected for so long in the classical period, because the idea of 'nothing' was associated with privation and evil ('nature abhors a vacuum'). There's a book, Charles Seife, Zero, the History of a Dangerous Idea. Part of the argument goes that Buddhist mathematicians had no such qualms, because their philosophy accomodated the idea of nothingness. (Incidentally one of the factlets from that book is that the symbol for zero came from the hole in the middle seat of the dhow, where the mast went.)

Trying to think of other things that are ontologically parasitic. — fishfry

How about shapes? Shapes can't exist in isolation. They must be molded from something.

Holes are properly thought of as shapes. Their only distinction is concavity.

How about shapes? Shapes can't exist in isolation. They must be molded from something. — hypericin

Shapes seem more like qualities or attributes. Color, temperature, mass, don't exist in isolation. They are attributes of objects. As is shape. I think shape would fall into the category of an attribute or quality. I'm sure there must be some standard philosophical terminology for this.

Holes are properly thought of as shapes. Their only distinction is concavity. — hypericin

Well a hole is not an attribute of an object, unless you look at it that way ... there's a rock of mass such and so, and color such and so, with a hole in it.

I'm not enough of a philosopher to go down this rabbit hole. I'm in over my head ... in a hole, as it were.

Oh, it comes from Quine's On What There Is, if you haven't read it. I have a hand-wavey understanding of it in the sense that I've read a bit of and about Quine. — Moliere

I gave it a skim, very entertaining and interesting. One thing that jumped out at me right away is that Quine is quite a lively and present writer, not a turgid bore like so many philosophical writers are. He entertains you with his narrative, then when you're not looking he makes his highly insightful points. And he's clear. You can understand what he's saying even as he takes you into the murky depths of ontology. Glad you pointed me to it.

Assholes definitely exist.

That's not a hole but an indentation. A hole wouldn't be able to hold water.

So are rings -- the bit of jewelry we wear on our hands -- holes, in your book?

True! But surely that's different :D

Or no?

Let's go a step further.

If holes exist, then there exists at least one entity which does not have a material basis -- rather, a hole is something of a relational entity that exists because of the shape of material things. Therefore, not everything that exists is material.

So, if we admit holes exist, we must reject materialism.

EDIT: And so the sciences fall to the humble hole, and not the grandiose plans of the religious ;)

No, rings have holes but they aren't holes. A hole isn't a thing but a property resulting from the shape of matter.

So do holes exist? As much as "being drunk" does.

So, as you would have it, when we say something like

"The hole is five feet wide"

if we wanted to be literally rather than metaphorically true we should instead say

"The ground is holey"

?

you are drunkey? Nah, language is fine as it is.

To me there is nothing puzzling about holes. Holes are a topographical feature, the opposite of hills. If there is a hole in a ground, the ground is shaped in such a way that there is an empty cavity it partially encloses. The word "hole" may refer to the topographical feature, the cavity, or both at the same time. But even if it refers to the cavity alone, there is no lack of reality in the space which the walls of the cavity enclose.

Would it matter either way?

For what it's worth, I just woke up early.

If language is fine as it is, then "this hole is 3/4 inch in diameter" is true.


Which would indicate, linguistically at least, that "hole" is not a predicate -- but a subject.

So we'd be in the queer position of believing true sentences that refer to things that don't exist if that were the case.

But a hill is made of something -- dirt and rock and such. That's the strange part about holes. (or shadows, too, as has been mentioned -- similar sort of thing going on).


It's not space itself in question, though. It's not a space that's there -- it's a hole!

And why is this any different than any property like texture or colour? It just describes the form or outer boundaries of an object.

Well, color we could say is electromagnetic waves.

Texture strikes me as a little funny, but it's not so in the same way. If I say that a pipe feels smooth, then that is in the predicate position -- thus linguistically indicating that there is something predicated of an object, the pipe.

Hence why I thought you were making an argument about natural language meaning -- that when we say "hole", in the subject position of the sentence, we actually are referring to a property of the pipe, rather than saying the hole itself has a property.

The walls of a hole are made of something too. A hole is a way that a surface can contour in 3d space. Nothing mysterious.

This seems like a non-issue. Materialists are willing to accept that there is such a thing as space between two objects. It's an uncharitable interpretation of materialism to argue that they must commit to the space between two objects itself being some third material object.

Well, color we could say is electromagnetic waves. — Moliere

Well, obviously different properties will be measured differently. Maybe I should've been clearer: why should we not treat the shape of an object as a property as we do for colour and texture?

It's bloody ducks in a row all over again. 3 ducks exist and when you get them lined up, there's a row. Ducks in a row, not ducks and a row. Stuff exists and arrangements of stuff exist. a hole or a row is an arrangement. Or a relation, rather like a punch is a relation between a fist and a chin. If you're not sure that punches exist, get your wife or friend to do the experiment with their fist and your chin.

It might turn out that stuff is an arrangement of weirdness (another arrangement). Try not to panic.

That's how it starts. Next thing you know you have a gigantic hole that people fall into every year and you can make a tourist attraction out of it.