Keywords
- does a hole move
- what is a hole philosophy
- ontology of holes
- nostril philosophy
- donut hole philosophy
- holes and objects
- null and holes
- computer representation of holes
1. The strange power of a simple question
Does a nostril move when a person moves?
At first, this sounds like a silly question.
The obvious answer is yes.
A person walks. Their nose moves with them. The nostrils are part of the nose. Therefore, the nostrils move too.
In everyday language, this answer is perfectly fine.
But if we take the question seriously, it becomes strange.
What exactly is a nostril?
Is it flesh? Is it empty space? Is it an opening? Is it a structure? Is it merely a label we use for a certain absence?
Once we start asking these questions, the nostril becomes an entry point into ontology.
Philosophy begins in the nose.
2. In everyday language, nostrils move
In ordinary language, it is reasonable to say that a nostril moves.
A nostril is attached to a nose.
If the nose moves, the structure of the nose moves. If the structure of the nose moves, the openings in that structure move too.
So the nostrils move.
This is not strange.
A hole in a bag moves when the bag moves. A sleeve opening moves when a shirt moves. A tunnel would move if the mountain containing it could move. A donut hole seems to move when we carry the donut.
In this view, holes are not independent floating entities.
They are dependent openings or structures.
A nostril is an opening that belongs to the nose.
Under this definition, nostrils clearly move.
3. But if a hole is empty space, things get weird
The difficulty begins when we define a hole as an empty region of space.
If a nostril is empty space, then when a person moves, does that empty space move too?
That feels strange.
Imagine making a ring with your fingers and moving your hand to the right.
In everyday language, we can say that the hole made by your fingers moved.
But strictly speaking, the spatial coordinates that were inside the hole before are not the same coordinates that are inside the hole now.
The empty region itself did not move like a solid object.
What moved was your fingers, the boundary, and the shape that defines the hole.
So perhaps it is more accurate to say:
The boundary that creates the hole moved, and the location defined as the hole changed.
This is where ordinary language starts to glitch.
4. Is a hole an object, a structure, or an absence?
Holes are strange because we talk about them as if they exist, even though they are not made of material stuff.
A donut has a hole. A sock has a hole. A wall has a hole. A nose has nostrils.
But we cannot remove a hole and place it on a table.
A hole seems to be something, but it is also a kind of nothing.
One useful way to think about it is:
A hole is an empty region, passage, or absence-pattern defined by the boundary of an object.
A nostril exists because the nose has a certain structure. A donut hole exists because the donut has a ring-like structure. A tunnel exists because the surrounding material defines a passage.
In this sense, holes depend on hosts.
They do not exist in isolation.
They are parasitic entities, not in a negative sense, but in the sense that their existence depends on something else.
5. Holes cannot exist alone in the ordinary physical world
In the physical world, it is difficult to imagine a hole existing entirely by itself.
A nostril needs a nose. A donut hole needs a donut. A tunnel needs surrounding material. A hole in a shirt needs fabric. A hole in a bag needs the bag.
A hole floating alone in the air would not feel like an ordinary hole.
It would feel more like a portal, a distortion of space, a black hole, or a fantasy gate.
Ordinary holes depend on structures.
This is why it makes sense to say that a nostril follows the nose.
When the host object moves, the dependent opening moves with it.
In that sense, a nostril moves.
6. The identity of a hole is harder than it looks
But another question appears.
When we say a nostril moves, we assume it is the same nostril over time.
But what makes a hole the same hole?
If the shape of the nose changes slightly, is it still the same nostril? If surgery changes the structure, is it still the same nostril? If a donut is slowly eaten and the hole changes shape, is it still the same hole? If a hole in a shirt gets larger, is it the same hole? If a hole is filled and then reopened, is it the same hole?
For ordinary material objects, we often appeal to material continuity.
But holes are not made of material stuff.
Their identity depends on surrounding boundaries, shape, function, continuity, and linguistic convention.
This is where the question becomes genuinely philosophical.
Everyday language handles it easily.
Precise definition does not.
7. In a computer, we can create a “hole object”
Computers make the problem even more interesting.
In the physical world, it is hard to have a hole without a host.
But in a computer, we can define a hole as an object.
For example:
{
"type": "hole",
"center": [10, 20, 30],
"radius": 5,
"host": null
}
In data, this looks like an independent hole object.
But even here, the hole is not truly independent.
It depends on a coordinate system, rendering rules, geometry definitions, software interpretation, and a conceptual framework.
A computer hole is not a physical hole.
It is data that instructs the system to treat a certain region as a hole.
So the physical hole depends on an object. The digital hole depends on rules and representation.
In both cases, complete independence is difficult.
8. A hole is somewhat like null, but not exactly null
A hole resembles null in programming, but only partially.
There is nothing there. But it is not just nothing.
It is a meaningful absence defined by surrounding structure.
The empty region in the middle of a donut is not just arbitrary empty space. It is a donut hole because it is surrounded by donut.
A nostril is not just air. It is a nostril because it is structured by the nose and functions as a passage for breathing.
A hole is therefore not pure nothingness.
It is structured absence.
Or perhaps:
a referenceable absence.
That is why holes are so interesting.
9. Everyday language is mostly right, but definitions get scary
So, does a nostril move when a person moves?
In everyday language, yes.
A nostril is an opening attached to the structure of the nose. When the nose moves, the nostril moves with it.
But if we are being more precise, it is not that a piece of empty space moves like a material object.
Rather, the boundary that defines the hole moves, and the hole-position defined by that boundary changes.
The best answer may be:
A nostril moves as a structure dependent on the nose.
However, space itself is not moving like an object.
What moves is the boundary that defines the hole, and the hole exists through that moving structure.
This is why the question is so interesting.
It begins as a silly question and becomes a serious question about existence, space, language, and representation.
What is a hole?
A nostril leads us into ontology.
That is surprisingly powerful.
Summary
- In everyday language, a nostril moves when a person moves.
- A nostril is an opening dependent on the structure of the nose.
- If a hole is treated as empty space, the idea of movement becomes strange.
- More precisely, what moves is the boundary that defines the hole.
- Physical holes depend on host objects.
- Computer-based holes can be defined as objects, but they still depend on coordinate systems and rules.
- A hole is not pure nothingness. It is structured absence or referenceable absence.
Social Post Draft
Does a nostril move when a person moves?
In everyday language, yes.
But if a hole is an empty region of space, does the space itself move?
Probably not. What moves is the boundary that defines the hole.
A hole may be a kind of structured absence.
Philosophy beginning from nostrils is extremely funny.
参考資料 / Sources
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Holes”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holes/Roberto Casati and Achille C. Varzi, Holes and Other Superficialities, MIT Press
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262531337/holes-and-other-superficialities/PhilPapers entry: Roberto Casati, Holes and Other Superficialities
https://philpapers.org/rec/CASHAOShurui Liu, Weide Chen, Ancong Wu, “HiDiGen: Hierarchical Diffusion for B-Rep Generation with Explicit Topological Constraints”
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02847
