Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-24482836-20140131021153/@comment-26484417-20160319170016

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The idea that darkness is mere absence of light is extremely outdated.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 means 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.