(Note: Many people only skim read this post, or only read the paradox part, thinking, "oh, I get it, this isn't a paradox!" Then comment without even reading the whole post, not understanding the correct context of the paradox because the solution to the paradox helps with understanding the right context. I know this because I've posted this post on other websites, and because that's what people have already done in this thread.)
The Paradox (edited for clarity):
The hole paradox arises from a misconception about the nature of empty space. While a hole might initially seem to be just empty space, it is not a true void but rather a space defined by its lack of something, such as the absence of material or substance. This leads to a paradox: How can we define a hole as a type of nothing when empty space itself is considered a positive value?
In traditional ontology, objects are typically defined by their properties and characteristics. However, a hole lacks these defining properties and exists as a space where something could be, but isn't. This raises the question: How can something that appears to be nothing have properties?
This paradox challenges our understanding of identity and existence by highlighting the complexities of defining and understanding concepts that are defined by their negation or absence.
+++
Solution:
A "hole" is a word which is used for two different things, but people often think you can use the word hole to mean both of those two different things at the same time (which is the absence of dirt and the ground around the hole affecting the value of the hole).
In math, a hole would not be the dirt around the hole when trying to figure out how much dirt you have in a certain space, it would be 0 (because you cannot understand it as being dirt). But if you're trying to figure out how much space you have available, it would be a positive value (something you understand as being available space), and the dirt would be 0 (something you don't understand as being available space). However, in the case of the hole being a positive value in math, the dirt around the hole would be right next to the borders of the hole, giving the dimensions needed to understand the amount of space in the hole via math formulas. But even in that situation, the dirt is not something you understand as a positive value, it's the exact point that you can't understand which causes you to "see" the dimensions of the hole via the max limit of the space available (the edges of the space).
But if you mix those two types of holes up, you see it as both a positive and non-value, or in other words, a type of nothing you understand, which is illogical because nothing is the absence of understanding.
