Existence is only defined by the capacity of conscious entities to perceive it. It is grammatically accurate to refer to light as the absence of darkness I suppose, but not otherwise. Darkness is simply the way the absence of any light is perceived by the eye. Light, on the other hand is comprised of physically definable particles, and therefore can be said to exist in a sense that darkness cannot.
2007-04-17 02:12:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ian I 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
Why does it mean neither of those things exist? Darkness exists, light exists. In the absence of one the other prevails.
A better physical definition would be that darkness is the absence of photons or certain wavelengths while light is the presence of said photons. Even that is debatable, though, because even a dark place can be full of phtons. If none of those photons eneter a detector such as an eye, however, it will always look dark. Space is full of light, but we only see those photons that come into our eyes.
2007-04-17 02:20:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jason T 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
You're arguing in a circle.
Darkness can definetly be defined as the absence of light. Think of darkness more as a concept than something physical (it can not be proven, but we know it exists).
Light on the other hand consists of waves, it can be bended or even broken. Science has been able to prove the existence of light. Therefore light should be the constant in your equation. Do not try to define light in terms of darkness (something that technically speaking doesn't exist).
2007-04-17 03:00:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by MB1810 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
The darkness just is. Light makes it recedes into the back ground, but it is still there. Darkness is a fact. Light is the variable. Now the second part of your question about, "if we accept this then we accept both darkness and light exsist. But doesn't that also mean neither of these things exsist? But if neither of these thing exsist, then it means both these things exsist as well. So how can something both exist and non-exist?" That doesn't even make sense. What HAVE you been smoking?!LOL
2016-05-17 07:37:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can measure the effects of light. It has energy associated wit it. It exists. Darkness is the absence of the light from energy. It cannot be measured; it's an abstraction. Sound is the presence of sound waves; it exists. Quiet is the absence of sound. It's also an abstraction.
2007-04-17 02:30:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gene 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
'But doesnt that also mean neither of these things exsist?'
There's the flaw. Cheese and cats both exist. That doesn't imply that neither do.
2007-04-17 02:11:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by PJ 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If we accept that they both exist, how is it possible that they dont exist? That doesnt make any sense at all. Its like saying we accept that both yellow and green are colors, therefor yellow and green are not colors.
2007-04-17 02:13:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by lazyjbob 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well yes you seem to have analyzed the question with considerable astuteness.
We could take it one step further but we are likely to muddy the waters and shed some doubt on the overall credibility of your analysis So there.
2007-04-17 04:50:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Billy Butthead 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think you got the part wrong about they dont exist. If they both exist then how can they both also dont exist?
2007-04-17 02:10:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by junvic 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
So why can't both exist & non-exist???!
2007-04-17 05:39:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋