h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
"A Brown Bag With Four Holes In It", is a brown bag with four holes in it.... nothing more or nothing less. It's purpose is to enable those who absolutely must use their smart phones or even iPads when in the cinema, to be able to do so, without disturbing everyone else.
The bag itself is lightproof
and it's only brown in deference to the so called Brown Bag laws that exist in parts of one of the colonies.
Here's how it works: to use the brown bag, you put your phone in it, then place your face inside the large front opening, in such a way as to ensure that no light can escape. The two small holes are then aligned to facilitate you periodically glancing up and looking through them to see the actual film as you text etc.
The other two larger holes are to permit you to insert your hands via the lightproof elasticated cuffs. Once in place you can now text away, as you continue to watch the film and everyone will be happy.
http://en.m.wikiped...rg/wiki/Karl_Popper
Who would have thought that Karl Popper would pop in? "You know nothing of my work" ha - very true, but only in a Popperian way. [xenzag, Jun 04 2015]
http://en.m.wikiped...nal_and_categorical
For anyone interested in Karl Popper - read on McDuff. [xenzag, Jun 04 2015]
Brown bag with three holes in it for horse
https://s-media-cac...d21c93ca25c6332.jpg
Horse on way to cinema. [xenzag, Jun 04 2015]
http://i.kinja-img....8njp42aua8o4jpg.jpg
These are most excellent. [xenzag, Jun 04 2015]
Electron holes
http://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Electron_hole
They're everywhere! Run! [RayfordSteele, Jun 04 2015]
Hole saga
https://www.youtube...watch?v=yShvgXZQBTs
Cribbins at his best [bhumphrys, Jun 04 2015]
An Introduction to Topology
http://www.maths.ed.../surgery/zeeman.pdf
Check out Fig.8 on page 2 - "Sphere with two holes bored through it, and one of the holes threaded through a hole in the other hole." - awesome [zen_tom, Jun 04 2015]
[link]
|
| |
Strictly speaking, that's a brown bag with five holes in it. Topologically, there's no distinction between the four small holes and the large opening at the top of the bag. |
|
| |
Although, thinking about this further, the word 'bag' might be taken to imply the presence of this large opening so "bag with four holes" could be interpreted to mean "smooth, enclosed surface with five holes". |
|
| |
Anyway - you also need a version of this for people who film concerts on their phones. |
|
| |
Nice, so a kind of nose-bag arrangement? With some
forms providing structure, the bags could be styled
into a kind of pointy cone-shape, and with subsequent
external decoration (perhaps round eyes and sneaky
grins) and an appropriately coloured homberg, might
present to the outside world like one of the spy-vs-
spy creatures, with their hands permanently lodged
deep within the recesses of their own nostrils. |
|
| |
//Strictly speaking, that's a brown bag with five holes in it// [hippo] I considered that, but the opening is not really a hole as it is part of the actual structure that constitutes a bag by definition. A bag would not normally be described as a form with a hole in it, but rather a container with an opening. Yes - nose bag style. [zen_tom] |
|
| |
[hippo]'s just getting topological on you [xenzag]
-
but I'd suggest that on that front, a bag doesn't
suggest the existence of any holes, as it is,
topologically speaking, equivalent to any other
finite surface, like a piece of paper for example.
If 'bag' in this sense is isomorphic to an enclosed
surface (like the inside of a sphere) then fair
enough, but for me, a bag requires an entrance, and
so reduces to a simple plane.
Later addition of the 4 holes doesn't affect the
original topology (in that it could have been a
bag,
or a piece of paper) and in terms of construction
the
bag and paper are isomorphic. So for me, the bag
with
4 holes definition holds up. But I think it's fair
to say this discussion is at a tangent to the
original idea. |
|
| |
Topologically, as soon as you have created one such
bag, you have also placed the entire rest of the
universe in a bag. |
|
| |
Does the bridge the cellphone makes to the bagged universe count as a hole? |
|
| |
//all my socks have holes in// - or, more precisely, each of your socks has a hole in. |
|
| |
My socks have a large number of holes, as
demonstrated by their inability to hold beer. |
|
| |
Oddly enough, the first sock-knitting machines (yes,
there are such things) could not do the top edge of
the sock. A pair of socks was therefore made (and
sometimes sold) as a single item, as a long closed
bag. Either the customer or the stocking-selling
sock-stockist was expected to cut this into two halves
and hem the cut edges. |
|
| |
Unless your socks are one-piece rubber mouldings, they likely have many hundreds of tiny holes all over them, from the gaps between the fabric fibres. |
|
| |
I often use the topic of holes as subject matter for my students. This is because holes have physical form; conceptual duality; actionable potential, and also can be debated as to definition. ie you can find holes, invent holes, and construct them in a variety of ways. They can also be positive attributes, or seen as flaws or in some cases be both at the same time. |
|
| |
Yeah but, like, they're just holes. |
|
| |
Very well then.... what's your definition of a hole? |
|
| |
It's one of those (points to nearby hole). |
|
| |
OK, if you want to be particular: a hole is a two- or
three-dimensional region which lacks one or more of
the components which exist contiguously outside that
region. It's
also two whalves. |
|
| |
//a hole is a two- or three-dimensional region which lacks one or more of the components which exist contiguously outside that region// according to that definition, a whirlpool cannot be a hole in a region of water. Your definition also results in the trees of a forest being described as holes when related to the ground. Ha! |
|
| |
That is correct. In three dimensions, a whirlpool is a
steep-sided depression in the surface of a body of
water. If you look at the whirlpool from above, you
will see the water at its bottom. |
|
| |
If you take a two-dimensional horizontal slice of the
body of water, then you will find a two-dimensional
hole. It will be where your whirlpool was. |
|
| |
This "hole" business is much easier than I'd expected.
What do you teach? How does it pay? Are there
vacancies? |
|
| |
Hang on. You added that tree bit while I was
replying, didn't you? |
|
| |
The trees could, if you wish, be described as holes in
the _air_. Their roots could also be described as
holes in the ground. This is completely self-evident,
since if you take the tree roots out of the way you
can actually _see_ the hole. I don't see how things
could be any plainer. |
|
| |
That's exactly the sort of comment that someone who
says "wow" would make. But in a good way. |
|
| |
I like to think I can do profound when called upon.
It's a lot simpler than most philosophers make out. |
|
| |
It's an easy enough mistake to make. Who among us
hasn't woken up with a hangover, a £500k credit-card
debt and a piece of art that may or may not be
upside down? |
|
| |
For those, may I suggest an "Art hole"? |
|
| |
At least it can't be upside down. |
|
| |
[bs0u0155], What the hell did you say? Wow, just wow. |
|
| |
Do Klein bottle socks have a hole in them or not? |
|
| |
[Bliss] the secret's in what you don't say. Thereby
creating holes. Currently, I'm able to make holes in in
my personal monologue, while simultaneously making
a hole in some gin. Initially, it feels like two holes are
created at the same time. Sort of an impossible
double hole. But, with careful mathematical
consideration, you can consider the act of saying
things as 1/not saying things. And gin is replaced by
air, which for our purposes is 1/gin. Overall, the
system hole constant is maintained as holes in
silence,gin,air and words are all created and
obliterated in proportion, unless the tonic's flat. |
|
| |
This is a new branch of topoligy, known as whole theory. The basic premise is the principle of conservation of holiness. |
|
| |
//The trees could, if you wish, be described as holes in the
_air_. Their roots could also be described as holes in the
ground. This is completely self-evident, since if you take
the tree roots out of the way you can actually.....// Ha -
the trap closes and your original definition of a hole now
reveals itself to be so all encompassing that it can describe
a forest as actually being an array of holes. Good luck
with that one as it leaves me wondering what isn't a hole? |
|
| |
This is the joy of the question, as it draws in a Popperian
dimension to the question. ie there is no absolute
definition of a hole. There are parameters with blurred
edges, where holes have duality depending on the criteria
you apply to their definition. This is what makes them
interesting to me. A supposedly solid surface may on closer
magnification contain many holes, and on closer
magnification again, these may disappear again. As with
everything the observer creates their own reality. Some
holes have depth, others do not. At what point does a
hollow or a dent become a hole? ie push your finger gently
into the surface of wet clay. This makes an indentation.
Push it further and at some point there is agreement that a
hole has been made. How is this point decided? |
|
| |
//How is this point decided?// Topologically speaking, it's
decided when your finger pokes through the other side.
Anything else is just (topologically) a dent. I think you can
safely laymanise this definition by adding the idea of a
cross-section at some level or other which would convert
any intersecting dents into holes in the cross-section. That
way the answer to //How is this point decided?// is clearly
and easily answered. |
|
| |
//there is no absolute definition of a hole// |
|
| |
There is no absolute definition of "warm" either.
However, I generally know whether or not to wear my
Astrakhan. |
|
| |
True - but you did offer a definition of a hole.... |
|
| |
[zen_tom] According to "your" definition, if I drill into a piece of wood, I don't create a hole until the drill goes all the way through, otherwise I have just made a dent. This is the duality of holes - some don't go all the way through to the "other side". Suppose I poke my finger into something like clay and make it curve around to emerge again on the same side. According to the "otherside" valuation, I have not created a hole. |
|
| |
//you did offer a definition of a hole...// |
|
| |
Well, then I stand by that definition. I'm not quite
sure why
you think it fails. |
|
| |
As you said //holes have duality depending on the
criteria
you apply to their definition//. So, relative to a
sheet of
paper, a hole through the paper is a hole. Relative to
air,
that's not a hole but a region of vacuum _is_ a hole. |
|
| |
If I make a hole in the topmost sheet of a pad of
paper, it's a
hole relative to that sheet but only a dent relative to
the
pad. |
|
| |
Many things have a duality depending upon the
criteria
applied to their definition. Those criteria are part of
the
definition. "Hotter" has a very precise and
unambiguous
meaning, but only if I specify what it's hotter than. |
|
| |
// a hole is a two- or three-dimensional region which lacks one or more of the components which exist contiguously outside that region// This is your definition. Now you are stating that there is a duality in this, but this is not indicated in your definition. Perhaps you might like to add these words "depending on your perspective." In other words, the concept of a hole can be understood but not specifically defined. A most enjoyable topic for consideration, which is why I use it in the visual arts. |
|
| |
Yes, perhaps the title should instead be "Four holes, joined together by a brown bag" |
|
| |
//Now you are stating that there is a duality in
this,// |
|
| |
No, I'm not. You can define the _type_ of hole more
closely if you specify the material which is either
outside or inside it, but that's not integral to the
definition. |
|
| |
If you disagree (which would make this more fun),
give me an example of: |
|
| |
(a) A hole which _does_ contain the same material as
is outside it or |
|
| |
(b) A hole outside of which the same materials are
absent as are absent inside the hole. |
|
| |
Look through a tree full of leaves as you are passing on a bus. Describe and define the holes according to your definition. Pay attention as they are transitory. This means that they are dependent on being observed according to a positional perspective to exist. You need to include these words in your definition. |
|
| |
I disagree about the definition of a hole going all the way through. A hole in the ground rarely does this. |
|
| |
Of course - my point entirely. Now offer your own definition if you wish. I say there is no definition of a hole that cannot be subject to debate, unless the perspective of the observer is included. |
|
| |
//Look through a tree full of leaves as you are
passing on a bus.// |
|
| |
It's unlikely I would be on a bus. Howevertheless, I
would not say "Gosh! That tree appears to be full of
holes!" I might say "Gadzooks! There are gaps
between the leaves of that tree!" |
|
| |
As for a hole in the ground - with regard to the upper
strata of soil (or the pavement or floor), it is a
perfectly legitimate hole. |
|
| |
I suppose the ultimate test of my definition would be
if I suffered some mishap as a result of my being
unsure as to what a hole was. This has not yet
happened, but I'll keep you posted. |
|
| |
//I suppose the ultimate test of my definition would be if I
suffered some mishap as a result of my being unsure as to
what a hole was.// Well as someone who can call a tree a
hole in the sky...... I'd say the bus is ready when you are, or
is that the other way around? The question remains for
anyone who cares to bother. Define what is meant by the
term hole? I'm off to the cinema sans brown bag. |
|
| |
//Define what is meant by the term hole?// I
respectfully refer you to my previous answer. |
|
| |
Yeah but, like, it's still a hole. |
|
| |
But a hole in the ground is by definition a hole, not a dent, otherwise it would be called a dent in the ground, not a hole in the ground. And most holes in the ground don't go all the way through - if they did, they would be a tunnel, not a hole. Quantum electrodynamics! |
|
| |
//But a hole in the ground is by definition a hole// A
two-foot deep hole is a hole through the top two feet
of ground. |
|
| |
[Ian Tindale] Yes indeed... you have it, but a long tapering slot would not be called a hole, so the shape is part of "holeness". |
|
| |
[xenzag] it's not "my" definition, it's "the" topological
definition. That's different to the day-to-day, fuzzy, my-
old-mans-a-dustman, ere-you-wouldnt -adam-an-eve-it,
common-or-garden, "I jus' dug an' 'ole!" - but it is a clear,
unambiguous, self-consistent definition that holds true
for an abstract kind of hole that renders a coffee cup
(with a handle) equivalent (isomorphic at least) to a polo-
mint. |
|
| |
This suggests most holes are merely dents - but if you
take the
second part and include the intersecting cross-section
idea, you get a better approximation to the more regular
type of hole - you just have to decide how deep your
cross-section goes. |
|
| |
As for the leaves thing, I wouldn't call them holes at all, I
don't think - gaps, perhaps, but not holes. And if you did
want to call them holes, you'd have to say that a
projection from a point-light-source (the sun) through a
3d-structure (the tree) onto an approximation of a plane
(the back of your retina) resulted in a pattern that could
be considered full of holes, but they'd be the type that
we discussed in the 1st definition since that plane onto
which the pattern has been projected is fully "pierced" by
the light (or the dark, depending on your point of view) -
so there's still some room for duality, in that sense. |
|
| |
I'm with [zen_tom], I think. And he has "zen" in his
name so his philosophy must be right. |
|
| |
//it's not "my" definition, it's "the" topological definition// I'll bear that in mind next time I'm eating a slice of swiss cheese. This is a tasty hole, though the surrounding cheese is a bit bland! |
|
| |
The problem would be finding enough space to store
and display them. Once you take away the bounding
material, holes become big. |
|
| |
You could keep each one inside the next, that way storage requirements are minimal. |
|
| |
I don't see any difficulty in describing the places where you see light transitorily shining through the leaves as you pass by on the bus as 'holes' - they are holes in the temporary 2D projection of the 3D tree as seen from your viewpoint. |
|
| |
Also, this "brown bag with four holes in it" - the bag is brown, but are the holes brown? Certainly the most important component of the holes - their edges, which is the thing which makes them holes - is brown, but does it not seem odd to describe a hole as having a colour? |
|
| |
Agreed. The most interesting aspect of holes is that they
are both a negative and a positive entity at the same time.
ie they are a thing and the absence of a thing
simultaneously, depending on the way you observe them
and describe them. This means that any definitive
description can be challenged. Do you have a definition?
[hippo] I offer only variable parameters myself. Popper
strikes again. |
|
| |
//they are a thing and the absence of a thing
simultaneously// |
|
| |
Yeah but, like, they're holes. |
|
| |
Aluminium, equally, is both aluminium and the
absence of, say, mascarpone. |
|
| |
//This means that any definitive description can be
challenged// - I'm not sure how you get to this from the
previous statement - equally, what's wrong with the poke a
hole through a surface definition again? We've countered the
"When is a dent-not-a-dent?" question by explaining how you
can define a secondary 2-dimensional surface, overlay it
onto the world we're investigating, and checking whether
the puncturing of it identifies whether there are holes
there or not. And all within the
original definition. A definition you have complete control
over in terms of how you want to define that intersection
plane - e.g. in a hole/dent of 2cm in a clay surface, if you
move your
cross-sectional measurement plane down from the surface
to 1cm, it has a
hole in it, if you move it down to 3cm below the surface,
the hole disappears - so it's not down to anyone's
perspective, but is entirely objective. Unless that's what you
mean by variable parameters, in which case, I guess we're
already in agreement - either way, I'm yet to see a
Popperian counter-example that invalidates the definition
we're using here. |
|
| |
//the absence of, say, mascarpone// but describing aluminium as being the absence of mascarpone - or of any dairy product - adds very little useful information to the definition of aluminium. It's like if someone asks you what a dolphin is and you answer "Well, it's something which isn't a suspension bridge". However, describing a hole as not being filled with the material which surrounds it is important to the definition of a hole. |
|
| |
//However, describing a hole as not being filled with the material which surrounds it is important to the definition of a hole// True, but then a hole in a piece of wood filled with plaster fits that description. |
|
| |
Like String Theory, only with holes? I suppose another definition of aluminium would be "a hole in the non-aluminium continuum".
[xenz] //a hole in a piece of wood filled with plaster// - this would still be a hole in the wood, despite being filled with plaster. Anyway, not a realistic example - you'd use a two-part epoxy wood filler; plaster would just shrink and fall out. |
|
| |
//but then a hole in a piece of wood filled with
plaster fits that description.// Absolutely. "Oh look,
there's a hole in the wood there that someone has
filled with plaster" is an entirely reasonable
sentence. |
|
| |
Anyway, I'm happy to agree to differ with [xenzag], as
long as it's understood that [xenzag] is wrong. I can't
say fairer than that. |
|
| |
//Oh look, there's a hole in the wood there that someone has filled with plaster// So perception is important. That's good - you're making progress! Now paint over the plaster filled hole and is there still a hole? Where is the topological mumbo jumbo now? I am most happy that my initial assertion that a hole is something that can be described, but defies definition is now verified. My proof is complete and you have confirmed yourself to be in agreement, even if you deny this. |
|
| |
//Now paint over the plaster filled hole and is there
still a hole? // |
|
| |
Yes, there absolutely is. Why on earth would there
not be? If the piece of wood is load-bearing, there's
a good chance it will fail because of the hole. |
|
| |
Are you suggesting that if I drill a hole through a
piece of wood, and then close my eyes so that I can't
see it, there is no longer a hole? |
|
| |
If there is a hole in the sole of your shoe, but you are
wearing the shoe and not standing in a puddle, is
there not still a hole in your shoe? |
|
| |
I'm all in favour of semantic recreation and
tepheonastic contingent definitions, but, to quote
the great man himself: "Yeah but, like, they're just
holes." |
|
| |
Now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall. |
|
| |
This conversation, full of holes, would be difficult in
Monty Python Language. |
|
| |
//Strictly speaking, that's a brown bag with five holes in it.// |
|
| |
Does the void within the bag not also count as a hole? That would make 6. |
|
| |