The playing diversity of holes and their individual playing characteristics are infinite when you consider the canvas they are designed upon. Unless you use machinery to intentionally grade out and construct a template hole with exact copies of elevation and slope %, running in the same prevailing wind directions, using all the exact same measurements of width and height and exact same dimensions of greens and orientation, it seems a mathematical fact that no two holes can be the same in playing them or look. Yet, we can say they are arranged and oriented similarly.
What I mean is to look at the possibilities of the geometry and use the multiplying effects that compound the diversity. Consider just par 4s. Mathematically, they can play from 270ish to 520ish in length. Just on length alone, multiply that by factors that they can play from 27yards wide to 150 yards wide in LZs or approaches. Then multiply that by at least dozens of turning points if the hole is to dogleg right or left and by how many degrees. Then multiply that by the 4 basic points on the compass and inter-directional incriments. Then multiply that by the potential for elevation changes tee to green from a range that could exceed 50ft in height, then multiply that by the infinite frequency of the terrain elevation changes from tight moguls to sweeping slopes and long or abrupt ridges, then multiply that by the factors of what wind adds or reduces or alters ball flight, multiplied by the elevation above sea level of the ball dynamics, and finally the dynamic of firmness and speed of the ground and variety of turf and its HOC, ......... and you couldn't possibly ever say that two holes could be alike on parkland or prairie, in point of fact.
But, that is the micro analysis of comparing golf holes. The mind can understand that in an analytical sense based on the infinite potentials of geometry of why two holes can not actually be alike. But, as JR points out, the naked eye perceives also in understanding space in something of an 'emotional' sense. One feels a certain emotion in a treed lovely parkland setting. One sees the land and field of play differently from a confined by trees and buildings obstructions in parkland from what the eye takes in out there in the vast prairie - long view of infinity to the horizon rolling sand hill prairie. The emotion that controls perception of the 'naked eye' is different when you are "used to" the look of those diverse landscapes. I venture to guess that a native of the sand hill prairie when playing the sand hill golf courses feels and sees or perceives the immediate and long view corridor much differently. I think the resident of the sand hills that sees this land everyday picks up things in the periphery of the immediate playing corridor that the person from an everyday confined long view horizoned environmental does not see. I think the person more accustomed to the prairie views sees more color in the long view horizon, and recognizes subtle terrain changes of elevation variance and distances more acutely, simply because they live there and are "used to" processing spatially these diversities. So what a person from a confined everyday environment perceives as just a bunch of endless sand hills (and what they know to be golf holes interspersed among them) as looking all the same, a person that is accustomed may see vastly different details, and have a completely different emotional reaction.