>Death cannot exist independently on it's own.

OK.

>Life cannot exist independently on it's own. The presence of life >points to the absence of it.

As the jellyfish shows, if you can continually renew yourself this needn't be the case, but I wasn't being terribly serious with that. Obviously the jellyfish can still be killed.

>They are in a relationship that cannot
>be separated into two parts. You cannot have the foreground
>without the background. Pointing to a corpse and pointing to a
>living body is identifying the same process at varied states
>of itself.

You're correct that an "opposite" situation can't exist without two counterparts. "Opposite" by definition requires two values at either end of a scale.

>
>We would be unable to identify anything as dead if there was
>no life to contrast it.

Obviously.

Again, opposites are opposites. They can't exist without each other. It doesn't stop them being opposites. You're intentionally misconstruing a very simple concept to try and make yourself feel like you've made a discovery.


>"Biological immortality refers to a stable or decreasing rate
>of mortality from cellular senescence as a function of
>chronological age. Various unicellular and multicellular
>species may achieve this state either throughout their
>existence or after living long enough. A biologically immortal
>living being can still die from means other than senescence,
>such as through injury or disease."
>

Invoking the jellyfish was just me having a joke, you don't need to get too hung up on those bits, son.

I think your main problem is in separating individual units with the overall. If you look at the whole universe then obviously life and death both exist because my state of being has no impact on yours. If you look at an *individual*, the only measure of life that matters, obviously only one state can exist at a time.

Because they're opposites.