[n0us]

As a philosophy major I'll try to give the simplest way I know how to explain this. If you are testing a scientific theory, what might be some criteria for evaluating that theory? First you want the theory to be verifiable, probably also falsifiable, you also want it to be able replicate your results, independent observation is another. There are other criteria obviously but I'm not going to be able to explain an entire branch of philosophy in one post, so bear with me. The Hole Argument comes in as a thought experiment where you have testers in different spacetime "holes" who are independent observers, replicating the results of a scientific experiment, the question to be answered is whether or not independent observation is a good enough criteria for evaluating a theory since the testers are epistemically blind to one another or if theories should be held to some higher standard. That's the short of it.