The light vs the darkness

Let’s veer away from the political debates for a bit.

I heard this on NPR today.

Is darkness the absence of light or is it the natural state of things?

Er, can’t it be both? I mean, isn’t absence of light one of the natural states of things?

Hm, what do you mean by “natural state of things”?


Light/Darkness seem to be the natural state of things roughly 50 percent of the time.

And it is the absence of light 100 percent of the time.

Or am I missing the point?

Is darkness the natural state or is lightness?

It’s not totally dark 50% of the time. Nor is it light that much.

You have to figure in the twilights.

Well, light occurs through an agency - usually, though not always, heat. In other words, you need a source for light. Therefore, I would say that dark is the natural state, as it is what you have when you don’t have anything.

Does that make any sense, and is it addressing the point you wanted addressed? Or am I making an idiot of myself?

Is light or darkness the one with particle wave duality? Wouldn’t the one that exsists as a subset of the other be the one that is not the natural state of things? As in, light exsists as a wave and particle inside of darkness, no? Since there are things much MUCH smaller than photons, rendering it impossible to see these tiny objects, can you really count that darkness as an absence of said photon if it is impossible to see to begin with? Also, was there light during the first few seconds of the big bang? I go with darnkess being the natural thing if I am understanding you correctly.

But what is ‘natural’? Isn’t it the normal state of things on earth uninterrupted by man?

So natural would be light during the day, dark during the night (and twighlight, the presence of low levels of light, inbetween)

I’ll get my coat.

(or, I suddenly realized this is not one of those threads I am intellectually qualified to take part in)

Y’all have to remember that light actually “is” something in that there are particles. Are their particles of dark?

Of course you are. Hey…I’m in it.

And y’all know I’m just a liberal redneck.

One of those words begs to be in italics. I can’t decide which.
(joking :slight_smile: )

Ok I’ll stick to the debate.

Does water ‘naturally’ fall downhill, or does it ‘naturally’ form a globe?

And what is the speed of dark?

Just curious…Is your question related to this “evil is the lack of God” thing?

There’s an experiment that’s been proposed to measure this, but you have to have a total eclipse of the heart for it to be doable.

Are you defining “light” as “visible to human eyes”, or just “presence of electromagnetic waves”?

Let’s just say light as the opposite of dark.

oh, I just love to use this line:

That depends on what the definition of the word “is”, is.

(I mean, sure, we could define “is” as being able to relay information in the objective world, and darkness cannot be quantified in such a way as to relay information, but what if we are merely figments of the imagination of some deity? You couldnt say that light “exists” really, either, now could you?)

Yes light exists. It can be measured. It can be slowed down. It can be bent. It can be diverted.

But that’s not the question.

But that’s not what it is. Light is electromagnetic radiation, in the form of quanta known as photons. Dark is the absence of these photons.

If you didn’t have any source of light, you’d only have dark. Darkness would therefore be the “natural” state.

Therefore, darkness is the absence of light, AND the “natural” state. Or is there some philosophical question I’m missing here.