In the spirit of (and referenced by) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry mentioned in the article, here's a lovely little philosophical (and not subst

In the spirit of (and referenced by) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry mentioned in the article, here's a lovely little philosophical (and not substantially mathematical) dialogue about holes: http://www.philosophy.org.vt.edu/files/9013/4455/4412/Lewis_and_Lewis_-_Holes.pdf http://www.philosophy.org.vt.edu/files/9013/4455/4412/Lewis_... . (I think the philosophers should be listening to the mathematicians, though. Part of the answer to the question "what is a hole", and part of the explanation for, e.g., the fact that counting the number of holes in a thing is problematic, is that what holed-ness really is is nontrivial homology, and the right question for holes is not "how many?" but "what homology groups?", etc.)