Philosophy Now Forum

It seems that a hole must start out "holeless" before it can exist.

For example a hole in the ground must have been filled in at some point (probably with dirt) before it can start to exist. And any other hole must have had something inside of it before it can start existing. Would this be an infinite regress I wonder? Does this sound logical to you?

Consider a flat surface of dirt. Workers come in and build up the surface by adding dirt, but they leave an area in the middle without any built up dirt.

You now have a hole that was already there before the workers showed up. Nothing was taken away. The hole was always there, you just didn't recognize it till the workers outlined it for you.

Isn't that exactly how sculpture works? The sculptor starts with a block of granite and takes away everything but the statue. Wasn't that statue already there in the block of granite?

Michelangelo, who knew a thing or two about sculpting, said: Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.

MaryRuffin wrote:It seems that a hole must start out "holeless" before it can exist.

For example a hole in the ground must have been filled in at some point (probably with dirt) before it can start to exist. And any other hole must have had something inside of it before it can start existing. Would this be an infinite regress I wonder? Does this sound logical to you?

Not really no, as the hole wasn't there to be filled in at any time it just wasn't there until the earth was dug out and then it could be filled in if you wish.

It needs empty space to exist before it can exist.

Scientists currently say that empty space can't exist due to quantum effects. Let's look at it from another angle: can a hole exist inside of a hole? How would the smaller hole exist if the larger hole didn't exist first? But the larger hole has nothing inside of it so how can it contain a smaller hole? (similar to Russell's paradox)

Just to say, this is really a metaphysics question that belongs to that forum.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
Let's look at it from another angle: can a hole exist inside of a hole?

No, a hole that 'exists' inside a hole is the hole.

How would the smaller hole exist if the larger hole didn't exist first?

It doesn't it's the larger hole.

But the larger hole has nothing inside of it so how can it contain a smaller hole? (similar to Russell's paradox)

Not even a paradox, it can't.

Just to say, this is really a metaphysics question that belongs to that forum.

Just bloody nonsense and babble as HH would say.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:...
Let's look at it from another angle: can a hole exist inside of a hole?

No, a hole that 'exists' inside a hole is the hole.

How would the smaller hole exist if the larger hole didn't exist first?

It doesn't it's the larger hole.

But the larger hole has nothing inside of it so how can it contain a smaller hole? (similar to Russell's paradox)

Not even a paradox, it can't.

Just to say, this is really a metaphysics question that belongs to that forum.

Just bloody nonsense and babble as HH would say.

On your last statement, are you saying that all of metaphysics is "just bloody nonsense and babble?..."

Your other statements are off.

PhilX

MaryRuffin wrote:It seems that a hole must start out "holeless" before it can exist.

For example a hole in the ground must have been filled in at some point (probably with dirt) before it can start to exist. And any other hole must have had something inside of it before it can start existing. Would this be an infinite regress I wonder? Does this sound logical to you?

No a hole is a reference to a negation of solid matter; what artists call negative space.
You seem to be offering a contraction rather than something illogical.

"a hole in the ground must have been filled in at some point"

This implies that a hole pre-exists. A hole that has not been has not been "filled in" as that would imply that it was already a hole before - but you are then saying that it needs to be emptied to exist.
A hole is brought into existence by the removal of matter. There is no regress of any kind especially not a infinite one.

It is obvious that no one here understands anything about holes.

Just like a man...always thinking every hole's only purpose is to be filled!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yShvgXZQBTs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq5pzufCZuY

There I was diggin' this 'ole
Hole in the ground, so big and sorta round.... (it was)
And there was 'im standing up there
so grand and official with his nose in the air...

Bernard Cribbins. Just one of the many reasons why I'm proud to be British.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:On your last statement, are you saying that all of metaphysics is "just bloody nonsense and babble?. ...

Not quite but nearly.

Your other statements are off.

How so?

Harbal wrote:Bernard Cribbins. Just one of the many reasons why I'm proud to be British.

I love BC, but I think national pride is a disease of the mind like all religion.
However much you like BC, you don't get to take credit for him just because you hail from the same arbitrary geographical region.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:On your last statement, are you saying that all of metaphysics is "just bloody nonsense and babble?. ...

Not quite but nearly.

Your other statements are off.

How so?

Since metaphysics is philosophy then it might be more accurate to say that some of the findings of metaphysics might be babble; but the philosophy is the examination of that babble the process of understanding of babble, and the realisation of consequences of the fact that some people believe in the babble.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I love BC, but I think national pride is a disease of the mind like all religion.
However much you like BC, you don't get to take credit for him just because you hail from the same arbitrary geographical region.

Maybe but you get to share the joke sometimes.