If we assume he provides no false evidence, then the mere statement “You are dead” should be already considered sufficient evidence, no? (For the sake of simplicity I’m currently ignoring minor scenarios where he’s himself mistaken or deluded)
I think this is a meta-level restriction. That is, we (outside the hypothetical) know that he isn’t going to present any false evidence. But the you who is sitting in the room doesn’t know that.
I’m not sure what the no false evidence rule adds to the situation.
It’s base covering, there may be false statements he could make to convince you but being uninterested in them, I decided to exclude any which may exist. The non-undermining rule serves the same purpose.
I think this is a meta-level restriction. That is, we (outside the hypothetical) know that he isn’t going to present any false evidence. But the you who is sitting in the room doesn’t know that.
I’m not sure what the no false evidence rule adds to the situation.
It’s base covering, there may be false statements he could make to convince you but being uninterested in them, I decided to exclude any which may exist. The non-undermining rule serves the same purpose.