Sorry, but Parallax was right. If the area fills with continuous, all-encompassing light, there would be no Darkness, or Shadows to manpulate, leaving the user powerless, unless the user generates their own Darkness.
Ok, this needs to be organized. Is this darkness vs. light as fictional elements and powers that loosely follows the immutable laws of physics and permits power levels and other ephemeral, abstract factors to determine everything or is it light vs. darkness as the real world is aware of it?
That's how it's often observed to be. In terms of raw power, darkness seems to always take an edge, but the transcendent, sometimes ethereal properties of light gives it it's distinct advantage... nonetheless, it depends on the user.
What is Light = Light is a very homocentric perception. We humans see light in a very small bandwidth of the electromagnetic frequency. from the high end of the infrared to the low end of the ultraviolet. Dogs, insects and vampires to name a few can see well into the spectrum beyond human potential. So what is Light?
Light is any energy one utilizes to visually perceive objects
Again Vision is a very homocentric perception. Some humans and many other species throughout the multiverse actually blend their perceptions, smell and taste, hearing and sight, or perceive in entirely unfamiliar ways we cant even dream up. We use radio waves to 'visually' paint far away galaxies....
I posit that "Light" is any molecular frequency modulation above absolute zero (Absolute zero being = zero movement of molecules therefore zero frequency to perceive). So any movement of molecules produces a frequency which can be detected and utilized would be an energy source.
What is Darkness = darkness is lack or absence of various higher modulations of comparative energy. If there is a higher frequency and a lower frequency then one is lighter and one is darker than the other.
How does an individual utilize the lack of energy to their benefit?
I would say that the lower the frequency the further the energy travels' though much slower and yet sustains the force with higher clarity. Higher frequencies travel less far arive much faster, yet their clarity fades out far sooner. For example a blast of red energy would travel slow yet arrive with all the impact it was bestowed over incredible distances. A blast of blue energy would travel very fast, yet its power would have disipated and spread out on impact across far closer spans.
Which is more beneficial? depends on what is trying to be done. a blast of blue could arrive and impart lesser damage, yet red opponent could have had time to dodge most of the blast because it was traveling so slow. These are comparative in our visual perceptions of light, they are both traveling the speed of light, yet red will travel further than blue even though blue arrived first until it faded away.
The power of Darkness must be a 'long wave frequency' that pervades the substructure of the universe/multiverse. Just as subsonic waves travel much further that higher frequency waves. Thus Darkness pervades the universe far more thouroughly than does Light. However if 'Light' did not exist, Darkness wouldnt exist as an energy source because without frequency of any sort there is soilidity, and absolute nothing to perceive or manipulate since nothing can move at absolute zero.
I don't view the Powers of Darkness as being purely fictional. Nor do I see all Powers of Light as benevolent.
There are enough provable experiences, and observable effects that sit properly outside of conventional accepted science. It doesnt make things "Paranormal" or Quazi-Science" or "Metaphysical" or "Supernatural", it simply means our science hasn't found a profitable or marketable reason to pursue these interesting experiences. Nor has science found a way to measure or repeat the experiences in a definable and repeatable way. Our science is only a few hundred years old, and is driven by both the military complex and the pharmcology interests... whatever brings power to a select few and wealth to those who will stop at nothing to secure more wealth. No scientific inquiry is funded that has the potential to rock the boat of the special interests, they will do nothing to empower the populous. Any scientist investigating a "disfavorable" avenue of investigation with potential to produce results is derided, ridiculed and defunded so that way nothing truly New ever makes it to the public.
"In an infinite universe not only are all things possible, but no matter how improbable they are bound to exist Someplace and/or Sometime. If 'out-there', why not here... If 'then', why not now."
I know there are proverbs and people that would disagree with me. But I believe light because, while darkness can't exist without light, light can exist without darkness. Darkness is the concept of lack of light, while light is a thing. Photons/waves specifically. If light were everwhere, to the point where there would be no concept of darkness, light would still be a measurable thing (via measuring the intensity). But if light did not exist, there would be no concept of darkness because there would be nothing to compare it to. "A man who has not seen a straight line has no concept of a crooked line". By that I mean in a world without light, a man might say to his friend, "It sure is dark out today." and his friend would respond with, "Compared to what?" Darkness can't have intensity because it simply IS dark, not a certain amount. Digressing.
In a superpower/supernatural sense of darkness vs. light, it really depends on the laws of opperation or physics in that canon. If you want to create a story where light always wins, light always wins. If you want to create a story where darkness always wins, darkness always wins. If you want to create a story where they are equal, they are equal. However, in our universe, darkness cannot overwhelm light.
This greatly depends on your perception of these constructs. If you simply define Darkness as mere absence of Light, then obviously the Light is going to be dominating the Darkness. However, if you define Darkness as something more, then Light may be in trouble.
The idea that darkness is mere absence of light is extremely outdated. Even the real-world science facilitates alternative explanations in the domains of extra-dimensions and advanced astrophysics, but failing to consider alternatives in a fictional scenario is very difficult to justify.
This analogy isn't perfect but for the sake of fictional scenario it should be fine: Imagine any random object (i.e., a mug) sealed in a container that blocks off the entire EM spectrum. In other words, the object cannot be seen by any means. Does this mean the object is no longer there? Of course it's still there, and this can be easily verified by—for instance—touching the object. Now, Darkness cannot be seen when you shine Light on it, much like the object in the container, but does this mean the Darkness is no longer there? Following this principle, the only implication is that Light renders Darkness invisible.
If you account for this, the comparison gets rather different. Light is fast, while Darkness is omnipresent; Light is concentrated, while Darkness is abundant; Light is piercing, while Darkness is consuming; and this goes on. This comparison can easily come down to quality vs. quantity.
It depends on wether or not the power is mystical or scientific, necromancers from the skulduggery series can bring shadows into light as long as there is a shadow to grab hold of, and their powers are chaotically useless in the absence of light.
Abstract question here, the absence of light creates darkness, but, does the absence of darkness create light?
If you were to absorb all light leaving none of it behind you would be left with darkness, if you were to do the same with darkness (remove darkness not counter it with light) then what are you left with?
Going by this I would say darkness has a bit of an upper hand, especially considering light generally needs a source, while darkness doesn't, and while light moves insanely fast, it cannot be everywhere at once unless sustained indefinitely, and also dissipates via absorption via matter. Even If you were to create a supreme intense light encompassing everything, everywhere, even penetrating matter to reach hollow pockets (underground caves etc.). You will need to not only hold it long enough to travel to reach the end of reality for it to remove all darkness, and maintain it infinitely, for once you stop the darkness would return as the light dissipates.
Also considering that light comes in intensities, couldn't that mean the same for darkness. Normally you don't think of that, a light goes on, thus we believe the darkness is gone. But what if it is more like a percentage? Where intense blinding light is the point where there is no darkness and all other intensities are just where the value of light is higher then the darkness? And where we start believing its starting to get dark (shadows, night with star/moon light etc.) is when the value of darkness is higher then light?
Well then, the entire discussion is kind of moot because "darkness manipulation" throws logic out the window to begin with. It's writer's discretion and that's the extent of it.
but still, it is the fundamental nature of darkness to be erased by light, to be pushed around and manipulated any which way light pleases. whether it's quasi-sentient or from another dimension is irrelevant. Darkness cannot withstand Light, or do anything to it. If it can, it's not darkness, is it? Light and dark are fundamentally dualistic. anything that doesn't fit within their dynamic is not of them. It's something else that we're calling darkness as a placeholder.
Light vs darkness in general is always a battle of attrition that darkness always eventually wins. Light is imposing, fast and finite while darkness is slow, unnassertive and vast. Light bulbs lose power, people die, stars fade out, and things end. So while light will always win in direct confrontation, "darkness" will still be a thing long after "light" moves on or dies out.
ArgentRhapsody wrote: Well then, the entire discussion is kind of moot because "darkness manipulation" throws logic out the window to begin with...
Not really, no. What this means is that your reasoning is constrained by the (way too easily challenged) definition of darkness and light from the real world, which is simply not enough on a wiki that has "SUPERPOWER" in its name--that is unless otherwise specified.
If the fantasy discussion isn't to your liking, you can always tap into real-world constructs that pertain to this discussion (e.g., Black Body).
This discussion has been going on for over 2 years? Seriously?
Ugh. Let's see here.
Both light and darkness are defensively weak against each other. Where there is light, shadows (sub-power of darkness manipulation) can be strengthened. If there is no light, darkness can actually be strengthed if the user is empowered by darkness. Light, however, can create Absolute Light to light up the dark area, blinding or weakening the darkness user. Darkness can be used in light to erase light, and light can be used in darkness to erase darkness.
There really isn't a black or white when it comes to determining the winner between light vs. dark. It depends on how the user uses light and/or dark. Let's leave it as that and end this topic.
Fantasy Connect wrote: Being a massive science Nerd, thanks for the link to Black Body...
Halliemj wrote: There really isn't a black or white when it comes to determining the winner between light vs. dark. It depends on how the user uses light and/or dark.
And that is--among other concerns--precisely why the discussion has been going on for all this time.
It's not simply a matter of determining which one is more powerful in general; because that's essentially impossible unless you take a very particular perspective on the issue. Instead, many have started discussing the properties and other aspects of these constructs, as well as other perspectives one might take when approaching these constructs.
Building on the original premise is what makes threads interesting.
Halliemj wrote: Let's leave it as that and end this topic.
No offence, but you aren't an authority on the topic (not like one exists), you're not the thread's author, and you're not even a moderator / an admin of the wiki, so what makes you think that your contribution should mark the end of the discussion?
There is no reason to end this topic for as long as there are people willing to join in on the discussion or simply express their opinion; the thread will naturally end once there are no more people like that.
How are we defining "winning"?If we're talking about eliminating one or the other altogether, then lets say you hypothetically managed to turn off or cover all light sources in the universe. What would be left? Nothing i.e. darkness. Science says this is actually what will happen one day, when all the stars go out. But if we're talking about winning as in taking up space and you conceptualize darkness as a material thing, then light and dark mostly coexist. Where there's a light and an object, there will be a dark shadow cast by that object. However, you can add another light on that side. You can theoretically drown out the dark even in a closed box or deep cavern by adding another light bulb or a beam of light. On the other hand there's no such thing as a darkness emitter (outside of fiction, obvs). So "darkness" itself has no offensive power, it cannot truly conquer over light but it'll be there when the light is gone.
There would be no winner. Darkness is the total absence of light therefore light would win. But think about a place or giant thing made of darkness. Black holes. They are filled with darkness, a main resource of darkness. They suck up everything, including light.
Darkness is inherently everwhere is what he is saying doesnt need to be fast its just the state of light absence and vice versa.
so is light,
Light isn't everywhere. We may experience it that way because, well, we live close to a light source 1.3 million times bigger than ourselves, but if you look at the night sky, you'll see that it's mostly darkness.