Light is not matter

Affirmative ArgumentsI clearly provided a definition of the term “light” in the previous round, i.e. a source of illumination, especially an electric lamp. Pro’s burden is to show that all sources of illumination, e.g. electric lamps, are not made of matter, and are, instead, made of “something else”, which, in a scientific sense, generally means energy. Pro asserts that there are two fundamental requirements for something to be classified as matter -- the substance has to have mass and volume. An electric lamp has mass and volume, thus it is to be classified as matter. RebuttalsClarification on Definitions“I have never stated that sources of light have no matter, but rather that light itself is not matter. A lamp has matter because it is a solid.”By standard DDO norms, when definitions relating to the resolution are not provided by the Instigator in the initial round, the Contender provides the resolution definitions in R1. As the Contender, I invoked the right to provide resolution definitions, and used the Google dictionary, whose definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary of English, to define a “light” as a “source of illumination.” Pro randomly contests that this definition is unsound with no source, and then concedes that a lamp, i.e. a source of light, has matter because it is a solid. This is a concession, as Pro must follow the resolution definitions provided by the contender if the instigator/Pro has not provided the definitions in R1. Epistemological NihilismRegardless of the confusion regarding definitions, I shall present a “kritik” of the topic by challenging a fundamental assumption in the resolution -- that knowledge and logic are entirely sound. My position shall be that of epistemic nihilism, i.e. nothing can be definitely “known”. In essence, the K shall attack the fundamental premise of “knowledge” being definitively true. “Knowledge”, by definition, is “justified true belief.” The K shall attack the concept of knowledge via. this core structure of premises. 1. It is impossible to fundamentally justify one’s beliefs. 2. “Truth” is a subjective property. Impossibility of Justification of BeliefsSextus Empiricus was the first to argue for epistemic nihilism, with an argument consisting of five “modes”, which were shortened to three “modes” by Karl Popper and Hans Albert, which became a trilemma known as the Munchhausen trilemma. [1] The Munchhausen trilemma stresses the impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If we ask of any knowledge X, in this case knowledge that light is not matter, “How do I know it’s true?”, we may provide proof, but the same question can be asked of the proof, and the subsequent proof, and so on, forming an infinite regression. This is referred to as the “regressive argument”, allowing for reductio ad infinitum to any assertion. The next mode is referred to as the “circular argument”. At some point, any and all “proofs” will be reduced to circular reasoning, viz. “A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true.” [2] This would mean that the assertion will always be logically fallacious. For example, Pro asserts that light is a form of energy, so the argument from circular reasoning would be based on an exchange like this:Pro: “Light is a form of energy.” Con: “How do I know it’s true?”Pro: “Because it’s been proven.”Con: “How?”Pro: “Light doesn’t have mass.”Con: “How?”Pro: “Because it’s made of waves.”Con: “How?”Pro: “Observational evidence.”Con: “Observation of what?”Pro: “Light.”Con: “How?”Pro: “An experiment via. electromagnetism showed light is made of both waves and particles.”Con: “What were the choices of the experiment?”Pro: “We already know that light was made of waves, photons or both …”In the last statement, Pro begs the question and commits a circular reasoning fallacy. Finally, the same leads to the axiomatic argument, where for these observations, the soundness of logic is assumed. The soundness of human observation, comprehension and logic must be adequately justified, and that is impossible. Impossibility of Objective TruthAs mere subjects of the universe, we have access only to our own mental content and comprehension. Logic is basically the boundary line for the limits of human comprehension. There is, most philosophers acknowledge, something beyond logical comprehension or limitation, which leads to assumptions being likely untrue, thus influenced by our personal logic and thoughts. Personal logical constructs are faulty because humans *created* such core concepts, thus these are influenced by the limits of the human mind, ergo these are subjective. Thus, the human comprehension of “knowledge” and “truth” is indefinite, and to question this would beg the question and question definitions. Ergo, human-limited “truths” such as the idea that light is not matter are purely and entirely subjective, and that light is certainly not matter cannot be objectively justified. Conclusiona) Pro concedes that lamps have mass and are matter, and since a “light” is a source of light, Pro has completely and entirely conceded the debate. b) Even using Pro’s definition of “light”, one has some core logically fallacious assumptions that can be refuted via. epistemological nihilism. Thus, the resolution is resoundingly negated. References1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...;