It is an undeniable truth that we all die someday. Yet, what remains elusive is the true nature of death itself. Identifying a truth is never simple, but when it comes to defining death, the task has been outright absurd for the living. Still, that does not stop us from questioning what death truly is. At least, not me!

Imagine an adult with no prior knowledge of death—how would we explain it to them? In other words, how do we define death in the simplest way possible? A common approach is to rely on dictionary definitions. When we first encounter an unfamiliar concept, we often turn to a dictionary for clarity. Typically, death is defined as “something that causes or indicates the end of existence as we know it.” If we take this definition at face value, it appears to be a widely accepted truth. But is it?

Scientific validation is one of the most reliable ways to confirm a truth. It allows us to observe facts rather than merely sense their rationality. However, the world we live in can be compared to an iceberg—what is visible is only a small fraction of what exists beneath the surface. When it comes to death, the obscurity is even greater. Only those who have irreversibly died have experienced its reality, and so far, there is no scientific method to access that firsthand experience. As a result, from a purely scientific perspective, the true identity of death remains unconfirmed.

Discussions about truth are rarely meant for casual reading. Yet, one of the fundamental questions in philosophy and science is: When can something be assumed as truth? The book Human Immortality: Death and Adjustment Hypotheses Elaborated presents a framework for identifying truth based on four key theories:

1. Correspondence Theory – A truth must align with actual reality.
2. Coherence Theory – A truth must fit seamlessly into the broader system of knowledge.
3. Consensus Theory – A truth must be widely agreed upon by groups.
4. Pragmatic Theory – A truth must be verifiable through practical application.

Now, let’s put the idea that “death is the end of our existence” to this test.

Does it correspond to reality? At best, this aligns with what we observe as second-hand witnesses of death. However, we have no firsthand experience of it.

Does it fit into the broader system? While we function practically under the assumption that death ends existence, this belief creates a deep emotional and existential crisis. Freud even suggested that the human mind cannot truly comprehend the idea of ceasing to exist. If that’s the case, can this definition ever be a “perfect fit” for our understanding of life?

Is it agreed upon by groups? At a surface level—yes. Most dictionaries and societal norms uphold this idea. However, if we probe deeper, we find that this belief is not based on firsthand knowledge but rather on an inherited fear of the unknown. Death remains an enigma for all living beings.

Is it verified in practice? In a practical sense, this idea influences how we handle dead bodies. Yet, what we see after death is just the body—stripped of the existence we knew before. Beyond that, we know almost nothing.

This is not a scientific debate, but based on this discussion, the conventional idea that death marks the absolute end of existence appears more like a widely accepted fear rather than a confirmed fact. Unless we receive information from beyond the boundaries of life, we cannot claim with certainty that death means ceasing to exist. However, let’s be clear—we are not proving this idea false either. We are simply acknowledging that what we assume to be an undeniable truth may, in fact, be an unanswered question.