# The light vs the darkness **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901 "2004-07-19T23:46:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/41 "2004-07-20T14:08:39Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > But energy is not necessarily light Yes, it is, at least ultimately. They have an inextricable correspondence. High energies correspond to high frequencies and short wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and low energies correspond to low frequencies and long wavelengths. If you’re thinking of something like heat, bear in mind that heat is not energy, but a _measure_ of energy. Without radiation, there would be no heat. In fact, heat radiation is just another name for infrared light. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/42 "2004-07-20T14:12:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, if you are sticking to a definition of light as “energy having an associated wavelength between 400 and 800 nm”, why did you ask: If the definition of light is so narrow, surely it is _obvious_ that there will be little or no such energy in such a box (evacuated or not)? That’s the point I was trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/43 "2004-07-20T14:21:50Z")
Oy. Well, the OP is impossibly vague as to what the topic actually is, but I came into the discussion assuming that people were making philosophical implications with respect to light/dark as some sort of ethics analogy. The comparison is often made between goodness-light and darkness-evil, and some people call the association arbitrary, stating that perhaps goodness-light are the hypostatized pair or that they are merely the absence of darkness-evil. We’ve shown here why that fails. Some people even attempt to disassociate or reassociate them, but those attempts are all miserable failures owing to the fact that evil cannot be the default ethic since it is destructive, and therefore if evil existed necessarily (i.e., were ontologically perfect), then existence would already be consumed. Upon that argument, some attempt to redefine evil and call it goodness, while calling goodness evil, and then you find yourself chasing a greased philosophical cat in a field full of moving goalposts. So, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/44 "2004-07-20T14:32:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Oy. Well, the OP is impossibly vague as to what the topic actually is…So, whatever. I agree. I’ll be back when Reeder wakes up and tells us what the hell this thread is all about :). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/45 "2004-07-20T14:46:17Z")
So infrared light shouldn’t be called such, **Cisco**? I think I’ll politely step off this semantical carousel at this juncture. In an attempt to blow on an ember of interest amongst the ash of **Reeder** ’s laziness, I’ll pick up on **Lib** ’s point: > [@](#): > > the fact that evil cannot be the default ethic since it is destructive, and therefore if evil existed necessarily (i.e., were ontologically perfect), then existence would already be consumed. I’m a little confused here. Surely, given that good is _con_structive, existence would already be _perfect_ by the same reasoning? Can it not be the case that evil destroys at a given _rate_, and that we happen to exist at a point before total consumption? (Of course, given my physicalist outlook I believe that[ul][li]_Suffering_ is the thing which exists. “Good” is merely its _absence_, “evil” its presence.[/li][li]Suffering does _not_ exist necessarily, and therefore neither do good _or_ evil. [/li]The _meta_physical does not exist, and ontology is merely an interesting but ultimately pointless discipline, a bit like learning Klingon.[/ul]But I think you knew all that already). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/46 "2004-07-20T15:42:03Z")
Due respect, Sentient, I would be interested in a serious debate about the nature of existence. But you’ll forgive me for having reservations about playing Agent Smith to your Neo, calmly slapping me about the face and shoulders with one hand as I desperately flail all my limbs in a futile attempt to get in at least a sucker punch. That is to say, I’m sure you can understand that I don’t care to be dismissed as a madman barking Klingon phrases while you look on with bemused disinterest. In any event, I don’t know how you can show that existence is in any way diminishing, particularly given your fai…, er belie…, er rational acceptance of the universe being eternal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/47 "2004-07-20T15:46:24Z")
Are we talking about the opposite of light here? For an elemetary partilce like a photon, its opposite is its anti-particle. The opposite of an electron is not “the absence of electrons”, its a positron. The interesting thing about photons is that they are their own anti-particle. So, I think we must conclude that if photons = light, and photons are the opposite of photons, then light is the opposite of light. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/48 "2004-07-20T15:57:05Z")
I’m not sure any mention was made of opposites, at least in the OP. Somehow, it was connected to Natioinal Public Radio. I naturally assumed some sort of hand-wringing ethical dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/49 "2004-07-20T16:11:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sure you can understand that I don’t care to be dismissed as a madman barking Klingon phrases while you look on with bemused disinterest. Of course, **Lib** , I would never wish to come across as mocking you in any way. My bracketed appendix was merely intended to acknowldege that there are some subjects we can debate earnestly, and others in which I must leave the floor to you since the very founding premises lie outside my worldview. Indeed, I will _defend_ your philosophy if I feel that it is being attacked by those who don’t really understand it (which is quite a few around here) even though it may be diametrically opposed to my own. I was exploring your contention that good cannot be the absence of evil in this ahem light - I’ll desist if you perceive this as derisive, but I assure you that such is not intentional. > [@](#): > > In any event, I don’t know how you can show that existence is in any way diminishing, particularly given your fai…, er belie…, er rational acceptance of the universe being eternal. I believe, and can provide supporting evidence, that time itself is about 14 billion years old. This is _all the time there is_ - _ie._ eternity. I believe that there is no difference between timelessness (which I believe characterises the initial state of the universe) and an infinite amount of time without _change_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/50 "2004-07-20T16:45:19Z")
Mea culpa, Sentient. I should never have suspected anything less from you than sincerity. I apologize. On topic, I certainly understand that you can provide me with empirical evidence of the age of the universe if given the premise that the universe originated with the alleged Big Bang. I can provide it, too. I also understand that you can define both time and eternity in such a way that they coincide with your observations and conclusions. But as you know, I am not an existentialist, and I do not define eternity as the sum of all time. The interesting thing about whatever discussion we might have is that we each can take the other’s side and argue it. I can provide your proofs, and you can provide mine. Just as I can cite evidence for the age of the universe, you can cite logical principles that render that age irrelevant. So, I’m not sure of what interest the debate might be, unless you just feel like sparring for the fun of it, and I’m game for that, I suppose. So, why don’t we start here — essence precedes existence because existence devoid of essence is meaningless. If we are to debate, then our premises must having meaning. In fact, if the universe is existential in nature, then we are not even having a discussion. We are not even shooting electrons to servers because electrons would have no essence, and therefore would be undefinable. Even if essence rose from existence, our discussion is still meaningless since rising from existence is itself a meaningless concept, arbitrarily concocted to assuage existential angst. Therefore, existence exists. (Credit to Ayn Rand.) And it has an essence which contextualizes it. (Okay, Ayn, you may now turn over in your grave.) It is this essence which is eternal and timeless, not in the sense of comprising all time, but in the sense of preceding it. It is not the sum of all time, but the context in which time has meaning. Your ball. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/51 "2004-07-21T04:39:39Z")
Dark is not natural, it’s a lifestyle choice. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/52 "2004-07-21T06:58:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Is it a fair statement, CurtC, to say that no particle can ever be at rest because, if it were, then we would know both its position and its momentum to a certainty? A particle can be at rest, but if it does, its position becomes smeared out across the entire universe. But I think the intent of your question is a good one: It is fair to say that no particle can ever be _observed_ to be at rest, because then we would know both its position and its momentum with zero uncertainty. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/53 "2004-07-21T10:01:24Z")
Essentialism versus Existentialism it is then! (I don’t think that idle old **Reeder** can complain that we’re hijacking a vehicle that he’s merely released the handbrake from and forgotten about.) I must admit, this debate is one in which the physicalist struggles to jump off the fence since _both_ sides look distinctly uncomfortable. **Existentialism** demands “free will” (whatever _that_ is) which a physicalist must pretty much _deny_ by reducing a “choice” to a vastly complex _calculation_ having a bewildering multitude of inputs from any number of sources; sensory, memory, chemical-emotional, even utterly _random_. The “angst” of Sartre and Kiergaart, the fear of choosing poorly, thus becomes merely another input to be fed back into the near-miraculous calculating machine comprising a kilo of offal in our heads. On the other hand, **essentialism** offers an _equally_ distasteful creed: that everything has an “essence” (that which, were it removed, would render the thing a different “type”, say) which can be discovered through “reason”. The words in inverted commas are tricky to translate into physicalism-ese, but not impossible by any means. The universe is _so_ - it is as it is, not some other way. The human brain attempts to somehow _encode_ the universe into memories incorporated in strings of dendrites which are filed and cross-referenced in a system of byzantine complexity even by the time we are two years old, and that complexity keeps increasing exponentially such that the path from certain ‘abstract concepts’ back to physical memory becomes impossible to see. However, _ultimately_, a kind of “average” of physically cross-linked memories (associated with a piece of language) is all “essence” and “type” are to a physicalist. “Reason” and “meaning” are similarly so, although these are perhaps better characterised in physical terms by a dynamic arrangement of logic gates akin to (but, again, _vastly_ more complex than) a computer chip. So, **Lib** , I’m afraid I find it difficult to take sides here since I feel that _both_ positions can be translated into physical-ese to my satisfaction in the same way that quantum mechanics encompasses the Wave versus Particle debate. Some arrangements of spacetime are clearly _different to_ others (a supernova and a saxophone, say) _but that difference is only clear to encoding offal_, which sorts its encoded memories according to a filing system (_ie._ “contextualises” or “finds meaning”) in which “essence” and “type” are useful (but still utterly **arbitrary** ) indices. I don’t know how useful this is, either to you or to the debate. I don’t think I’ve explained myself quite like this before, and so _I’ve_ found utility in setting forth my position for one who could explore it with both charm and rigour. I happen to think that “translating” age-old philosophical dilemmas into physical-ese is the way forward for philosophy these days, and I’ve seen very little of it around (the above being my very own amateurish efforts). However, you should understand that the only reason I even started to explore this position so earnestly was your good self, **Lib**. _Ne Molesti Te Deprimant_ (to use a more correct version of the oft-quoted _Non illegitimi carborundum est_). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/54 "2004-07-21T17:29:27Z")
Hmmm… I’m not sure this would be much fun for either of us, Sentient, certainly not because either of us is incapable, but because we’re going to end up sounding like a Platonic dialog. In the end, it is an argument about meaning. And as you know, I could not have typed any words other than these. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/55 "2004-07-22T08:27:12Z")
Fair do’s, I guess a thread dedicated to some subject wherein there _is_ enough common ground for a worthwhile dialectic would worth waiting for, rather than trying to comandeer this one. > [@](#): > > as you know, I could not have typed any words other than these. Whether or not you _could have_, you _didn’t_. To misquote a great mind: _Do, or do not. There is no “choose”._🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2004, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/56 "2004-07-22T09:51:55Z")
But maybe I did. How do you know that the server did not fail? ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/57 "2004-07-25T04:52:34Z")
> [@AvhHines](#): > > 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. Y’know, I’d agree with you. I think that it would be dark when we don’t have anything. But we can never prove it. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/58 "2004-07-25T04:58:13Z")
[QUOTE=asrivkin] I disagree with the “naturalness” of darkness, inasmuch as I think the question is answerable: everything that’s not at absolute zero gives off radiation (“light”). Nothing is at absolute zero. So, light is everywhere. If we could see in the microwave part of the spectrum, the universe would be aglow from all directions. I suppose the natural, if absurd, conclusion to that way of looking at it is that it’s never actually dark. [QUOTE] Yeah, but we’re assuming an absence of light, like there is nothing! Even that microwave stuff - like nowaves! ---
**Author:** ![asrivkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9d8465/32.png) [@asrivkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asrivkin)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/59 "2004-07-25T15:17:04Z")
> [@Snakespirit](#): > > Yeah, but we’re assuming an absence of light, like there is nothing! Even that microwave stuff - like nowaves! But you’d have to construct a very artificial environment to do that. Not natural. Or, in any event not what (I think) the OP was asking. Um, not that I know what the OP was asking. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901/60 "2004-07-29T08:12:25Z")
Light is a thing. An emission of photons fom an energy source (as far as we know) or an emission of energy in wavelengths we can’t see but can qualify as ‘light’ on some level. Without that emission we have dark. We alrady have dark in those places where light waves/particles/strings/things cannot yet reach, for whatever reason. Without the actor (light) there is no light, which is dark. This is the natural state. Light is being. Dark is the absence of being. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-light-vs-the-darkness/255901.md?page=2)