Another thought:

If we die and reach the afterlife, what if there is life but not eternal life?

In a sense we have cheated death, but death still awaits us - so in a sense we haven't cheated death.

Just playing devil's advocate with some more 'scary' thoughts...

I have a different answer: don't good verbal arguments exist? I.e., as in law, politics, or philosophy? Positivism assumes that the only sound arguments are either mathematical or empirical, but have they never experienced a convincing verbal argument? And if it's all just 'metaphysics' or 'language games,' then what separates such reasoning from astrology or shear pseudoscience? Surely there is a difference...

To those who think that there is no such formula, consider the "GRE Analytical Writing" section...

I just realized something about my questions: the phrasing of the questions is not clear; do I mean hypothetically, do I mean for all practical purposes, or am I talking in absolute terms (note: this type of problem often applies to philosophy in general)?

For instance, consider the question with respect to what the best thing is that could happen to a person:

Practically, it could mean something like having "good luck" or having your "big dream" come true.

Hypothetically, it could mean having great, great fortune - e.g. all of your dreams come true.

In absolute terms, it could mean that every moment of every day of a person's existence is maximized for happiness - i.e., "infinite happiness."

I now realize that there is something deceptive about the questions, but I suppose that you can answer as you wish...

No: again: an observer doesn't even generally 'require' a reality to observe either. I.e., Descartes' Meditations. So scratch all of that...

On second thought, maybe the 'observer' is in something like the Matrix, and the observer isn't observing something 'real.' Then my conclusion isn't true. But I would say that maybe it is generally true...

I think that debate confuses something: we can't have an observer without a reality to go along with it; what would such an observer then be "observing?" But we can have a reality without an observer; the universe existed long before anyone inhabited it. Was it not in some sense a 'reality' at that time? In a nutshell, that is my answer (not trying to be a smarty aleck, either.).

I mean in general. I don't think it is possible to identify every variable with respect to anything in philosophy. What are the answers for you?