Can there ever be an opposite of a primary condition if the opposite is really only the absence of the primary

Question

condition?

For example the opposite of light is not darkness. But instead is only the absence of light. And the opposite of heat is not cold but only the absence of heat.

Answer 1

surely though the absence of the condition could not be considered the opposite, as in your example there are many things that are not a bubble of air, but not all of these are considered to be the opposite. In relation to things such as light, etc, i don't think that you can have an opposite as it is continuous rather than discrete. Ie, it is not simply a matter of whether there is light or not, as the intensity of the light would be able to change, and an absence of light would be merely one value on this scale.

With a more Physics-minded approach, i suppose you could say that the opposite of light is an atom or other particle, as light is a wave with energy and an atom is a particle with matter. Maybe pushing the definition a bit but its the closest thing i could think of.

Answer 2

Actually, this implies that there is ALWAYS an opposite of every primary condition.  The absence of a condition still counts as an opposite, even if it is defined only by the thing that it lacks.  It's kind of the same reason why a hole in the ground is different from a random bubble of air: the presence of a defining context can give a void more meaning.  Moreover, it just occurred to me that there can indeed by the opposite of a condition that  is more than just the absence of that condition.  If an object is spinning clockwise, the opposite of that would be a counterclockwise spin, not just the absence of a clockwise spin.