 Nudds (2018) challenges both event theories by virtue of “the argument from the medium” which is elaborated to show that environmental events are not the bearers of acoustic features (2018: 54). The main premise of the argument, the existence premise, states that we can hear a sound without the occurrence of an environmental event. This premise can be used against both event theories, which claim that sounds are either identical to environmental events or to parts of such events (2018: 67). Nudds imagines two situations, S1 and S2. In S1 there is a disturbance of the medium and an environmental event, such as a collision; S2 is just like S1 except for the fact that the disturbance of the medium takes place without that there is an environmental event. In both situations you hear a sound, but in S2 there is not any environmental event; therefore, it is possible to have a sound and its acoustic features without the happening of an environmental event. In order to check whether this conclusion is true, Nudds elaborates an analogous case within vision and concludes that while there are two different arguments to show that the premise is false in vision, none of them apply also to the auditory case. He asks to imagine to have the situation S3 in which you see a red cube, and the situation S4 in which we keep the same pattern of light which determine the appearance of a red cube in S3, except for the fact that there is no red cube. The arguments to show that the premise is false in the visual case are as follows.