Granted that's how it appears. But just because we are unable to describe a difference does not mean that there is no unperceived difference. To assume such is a great source of folly.

also

Neither do I doubt there will be differences we are unaware of and cannot account for.

Conversely, I believe that to assume there is more to something than there appears to be without evidence or at least a means of investigating your hypothesis is an even greater source of folly. This is not to say that there aren't detrimental things out there that we can't currently perceive. But if they truly exist and cause a problem, they will be noticed sooner or later. Many of the environmental issues we have were initially propagated by ignorance of the cause-and-effect relationships found around us. The technology we have that made our lives easier was hurting the world around us and we didn't notice for some time. But now we know. And now that we do we can try to find ways the mitigate or, hopefully, reverse our mistakes, preferably at little cost to economic concerns or to convenience. Our research is more focused, and we are starting to learn things about our world that we would have never imagined before we had cause to investigate. We are problem-solvers, it is how we advance. Of course, we might already be too late. But I think that's more of a problem of willful ignorance than our previous actions. And willful ignorance will never be defeated by more willful ignorance. And failure to act because of a fear of something that we can't find evidence for or test for is willful ignorance..../soapbox...

I don't see how it could be disproven that every time the "transporter" was used one person was killed, and a remarkably precise copy of them was generated.

It doesn't have to be disproven. It is similar to the argument of whether God exists. It would be far more efficient and rational to find proof of something than to attempt to discredit it. If you have no proof that someone has died, why tell them that they have?

The technology is reliant upon huge, unstable, highly radioactive atoms. It requires MUCH LESS energy to bring them to critical mass compared to the relatively tiny, relatively stable atoms that make up a human body.

Well, you make a fair point there. But if a proper catalyst can be found, it should be possible to release the potential energy with a lower input of energy. Not exactly current tech, but easier for me to imagine than to return the matter to energy later.

My thinking is that all matter exists in a constantly interactive relationship.

I agree with you. Which brings up an interesting point. We are constantly changing. I don't know how old you are, but chances are you don't have very many of the cells left that you were born with. It's not just that you have more, its that the ones you had at birth have almost all died and been replaced by now. But you don't need a lifetime to change. You don't even need a second. Every second, every living cell experiences thousands to billions of reactions. Many are metabolic, but there is a hell of a lot more going on concurrently. So I guess the key of your debate hinges on the idea that the disruption of that continuous flow, and then the restart, would constitute a replica. By that understanding, the screenplay I am writing, which changes a bit every time I work on it, becomes a replica every time I save-turn off computer-turn on computer-open file. But in my head, it is still the same, albeit evolving, screenplay as it has always been, even if I don't get back to it until a few years later. A replica, to me, would be when I back it up on an external drive.

I don't know the meaning of the word. I have my beliefs about the meaning, but philosophically I am agnostic. :)

It would appear that you are linguistically agnostic too :)

So then of your water example you must admit that it cannot be absolutely isolated yes?

Given that I know a little bit about the crazy field of quantum physics, I can only concur that it cannot be absolutely isolated. But I do think it can be practically isolated. We may never know everything, but we do the best we can with what we know. And if it provides results, that is a benefit, as well as being one step closer to the absolute.

No. I am just not for placing complete trust in "knowns"

And well you shouldn't. But it isn't about complete trust. Should you have complete trust that there isn't a fire on your roof right now? No. Should you spend the rest of your life staring at your roof? No.

I haven't read a satisfactory definition of life myself either. :)

I'm not sure there is one. At least not for thoughtful people like us.

The laws of chemistry I indeed do believe are the selfsame immutable laws of reality.

Essentially. Although I would argue that it is more accurate to state that the laws of chemistry are simply specialized responses to the laws of physics. But, potato potahto.

But I also believe that something special (albeit poorly defined) is happening that sets apart "living" things from other things that do not "live".

Which is pretty much what this debate is all about. So...ahem...WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

I don't think so. I think we perceive a difference we aren't that good at describing.

I think I used to. But the more I've learned, the less likely I am to do so. Not that I am a better person for it. Just...I went down this path and I have changed.

hmm. revealing. The word I would pick is: Health

I'm certainly not going to knock health. Indeed, they can be quite symbiotic: knowledge can make you healthier, a healthy person can live longer to attain more knowledge. Both are great. But here is why I place more emphasis on knowledge: No matter how healthy I am, I will die. But if I gain knowledge, and then spread it, it could outlive me. The inventors of most things we are familiar with have been in the ground for a very long time. But their inventions continue to benefit us, as well as raising our gestalt knowledge higher than any level of health an individual could achieve.