This is a strange question but I was wondering if anyone has an answer for it, probably do… (I’m not a student right now, I’m not asking this for homework! I’ve read the rules by now.) If darkness did not exist, could we see light without the contrast?
That’s kinda like asking if water didn’t exist, would the wind still blow? I 'unno. They both exist. There is no way of knowing without assuming and that’s rocky territory. Detached they’re known as opposites. If they are causal to one another or one to another, such as darkness as the cause for light, no, of course light would not exist, but there is no evidence for this. Light exists and darkness exists. Being opposites, their absence does not incite cause, just contrast. We cannot assume contrast to be cause to what is being contrasted but only cause of contrasting when compared.
Your logic is ab is not ab because it does not follow with ≠ba or ba is not ba because it does not follow with ≠ab. It remains classified without cause being either ab or ba needing further formulation to exist. They do not cause or formulate eachother, they just exist and coexist.