Consider the following hypothetical question:
If there were two moons, what kind of poem would be composed?
There are two ways of considering this type of statement that I find unexciting:
- Any answer for this question is true, since the premise is false (as an application of the principle of explosion)
- We can't say anything, since the change may result in large differences in later state and prediction is impossible.(butterfly effect)
I think that both solutions are inadequate and there ought to be a theory that deal with this kind of contradiction.
Can anyone help me to better understand how to understand these sorts of conditional questions.
In ordinary conversation, counterfactual propositions are not trivialized, and I seek such theories that counterfactual need not trivialized and ordinary reasoning are constructed in that theory.
For example, I think the question "What would you do if you were born rich?". I think the answer from a strictly scientific point of view of would be as follows:
"If I was born rich, almost everything about me would be different from this world, and to begin with, it is not even clear whether an I with the same personality would exist, so I can't say anything."
It's not false, but people don't answer in such a way. They might answer as "I would eat expensive food every day, live in a mansion, and ..."
These sorts of answers seem to have their own truth values. If the person answering is someone who likes tennis, they may says "I would buy my own tennis court.", this seems to be true, but if they don't like tennis and instead are a fan of something else, it must be false.