If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

You are missing the point. Occam's razor can arguably be used to discern the most likely explanation.But "most likely" is hardly the route to absolute truth is it?

Hi Stile, Having full knowledge of everything is not required.
Only having full knowledge of what constitutes death is;
in addition to being able to verify such a condition. This should convince you there is no way for me to be wrong.I claimed that death is a absolute. And I can claim with full confidence that if someone meets the criteria of death then they are dead. We can haggle over definitions and such. But eventually we would agree what dead means.This does however come back to tautologies though.
Blac

I have no idea, the question is a bit fuzzy.But I know you won't be able to convince me that it is absolutely true that Lester is dead. Ontology does not recapitulate phylogeny.

The brain of Lester Moore is the jar next to yours.He is as dead/alive as you are.How can you be absolutely certain this is not the case?

Well simple, he would be the one with 4 slugs from a 44 in him.
If I was to dig Lester Moore up and verify through what ever criteria you require it is him. Then I could with full confidence declare him dead.Now how could I know we are brains in a vat? I could not as you well know.But so what If two realities are identical and indistinguishable in every way then they are the same for all intents and purposes.

In which case your knowledge is not absolute is it? Indistinguishable to who? You? The evil demon? The architect of the matrix? Lester Moore as his brain sits in the jar next to yours.In his jar he is dreaming of a world where you are dead. He is unable to distinguish this 'dream' from any other form of reality.Are you alive or dead?One's inability to distinguish is what necessarily denies us the absolute knowledge you keep claiming to have access to.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well would not Occam's Razor allow for a logical discernment?
Irregardless,
I never claimed absolute knowledge, I only claimed death is absolute. And if there is but one absolute then there could certainly be more. Well as previously stated, in this scenario I am dead, in Lester Moores reality. That is if Lester Moore's reality is such that I am indeed dead.You seem to be suggesting that there is some final, grand reality that trumps all others. I am suggesting a more pragmatic view that for every jar is a reality that is just as valid as the next.

Biochemical processes don't stop; they only change. There is no "end point" per se. A few decades ago you would have made the same argument about a person who had stopped breathing. Who knows what medical advances will be made in the next few decades? Reattachment of severed heads? Maybe. If what's "absolute" today is not true tomorrow, how absolute is that? If he was completely decomposed, I'd say he was pretty certainly dead.Absolute zero is absolute. Pretty close to absolute zero is not.Edited by ringo, : Addedspacebetweenwords.Edited by ringo, : Changed erroneous line break to space.

So you are dead in Lester Moore's reality but alive in yours and Lester Moore is dead in your reality but alive in his.You have just described death-relatavism.The very opposite of any sort of absolute.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Ringo, Ummmm... ok but I said metabolic. metabolic
ˈmetəˈblik/
adjective
adjective: metabolicrelating to or deriving from the metabolism of a living organism.
"a metabolic disorder" Well you have a good point there.
Except we know that the human body can not survive in a "near absolute" zero temperature. Near absolute freezing is enough to cause a absolute death. And for good measure 212 degrees F is enough to cause a absolute death as well but what the heck a complete incineration should remove any doubt.

I know you did. You used the wrong word. There is no magic absolute "point" where metabolic processes cease to be metabolic and become "just" biochemical. Medical science can often reverse the process back into the "metabolic" range. You're mixing your metaphors. I only mentioned absolute zero as an example of something that is absolute.But of course we don't "know" what extremes the human body can survive. We have a pretty good idea of what damage our present methods can reverse - and that idea is changing every day.

According to your scenario. Which you should be able to see that
we can only make claims of knowledge in our own reality.
Otherwise things break down into idiotic nonsense. Like we can not have absolute knowledge of certain things such as, if some one is dead or not.
"Lester Moore is dead."
"How do you know?"
"Because he is laying in a grave and it has been forensically verified it is him."
"How do you know he is not some brain in a vat dreaming your the one who is dead?"
"I don't, but it does not matter because in my reality he is dead."

Any truth which varies dependent on perspective is relative rather than absolute.You seem to have inadvertently ended up making the case against absolutism.....

Are you guys still having fun?

No Guv'nr not me. I ended up showing how Cartesian doubt fails to provide adequate reason to doubt the veracity of ones own reality in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. How can the truth be relative if there is nothing to base another perspective on? Can you show me evidence that this demon,vats, brains exist anywhere other than in your own mind? If not then I suggest there is only one reality of which we speak and one Lester Moore who is absolutely dead.