|Abstract||In classical topology the only part of a doughnut that matters is the edible part. Here I review some good reasons for reversing the order and focusing on the hole instead. By studying the topology of the hole one can learn interesting things about the morphology of the doughnut (its shape), and by studying the morphology of the hole in turn one can learn a lot about the doughnut’s dynamic properties (its patterns of interaction with the environment). The price--of course--is that one must be serious about reifying voids.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
J. Melia (1999). Holes, Haecceitism and Two Conceptions of Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):639--64.
Chuck Hillig (2007). Looking for God: Seeing the Whole in One. Sentient Publications.
John Byron Manchak (forthcoming). Is Spacetime Hole-Free? General Relativity and Gravitation.
Per Sandin & Misse Wester (2009). The Moral Black Hole. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):291 - 301.
Oliver Pooley (2006). A Hole Revolution, or Are We Back Where We Started? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 37 (2):372-380.
D. J. (2001). The Limits of Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (4):511-524.
Achille Varzi (2000). Topological Essentialism. Philosophical Studies 100 (3):217 - 236.
Roberto Casati & Achille C. Varzi (2000). Topological Essentialism. Philosophical Studies 100 (3):217-236.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #74,716 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?