Declaração Universal dos Direitos dos Povos Indígenas – Brazil 2008.
Philosophy of Language – ABC Exercise.
Counterfactuals
(problem source reference, List of Philosophical Problems – Wikipedia / solution reference, ABC – The Alphabet of Knowledge).
_______________
A counterfactual statement is a conditional statement with a false antecedent.
This is a problem of the philosophy of logic, therefore of information, rather than the philosophy of language, therefore of communication. So both logic and language share the structures, systems, forms and functions of logic. Respectively, of high definition, as in physics and of low definition, as in quantum mechanics. Accordingly estimated, calculated and programmed in modern mathematics, with precision or probability, respectively. Finally logic and language share the dynamics of limitation and specifically the (quantum) interchanges of variation, in mass, motion, dimension and information. These dynamics are configured in interactions / relations, reproductions / organizations and conditions, as for example in biology (natural) and in technology (technical and human).
For example, the statement “If Joseph Swan had not invented the modern incandescent light bulb (conditional precedent), then someone else would have invented it anyway” (false antecedent) is called a counterfactual, because, in fact, Joseph Swan invented the modern incandescent light bulb.
The truth-condition of this counterfactual rests in the dynamics, essentially in the time system, of this invention.
Joseph Swan runs in the current present the time system of the invention which is driven by the dynamics of the certain, real and precise, past, towards (direction) of the uncertain, potential and precise, future. This meaning, until he makes the invention and the past catches up with the future (and the reverse). The invention is the transfromation of the interaction of the invention (ulitity of light by Joseph Swan) to reproduction and organization (ulitity of light by everybody), therefore the transformation of the invention to operation and device (condition). To be specific here, the transformation, of the probable, fluid and quantum state (of the invention), to the programmed and precise, fixed and firm, physical state (of the device).
The truth is in the range (course) of this transformation from abstraction through to approximation and accuracy and the elevation from the quantum (dark) matter / energy state to the physical (luminous) matter / energy, condition.
Yet the statement, appears not true because “Joseph Swan did invent the modern incandescent light bulb.” So the hypothesis of what would happen if he had not invented it, is not real. So the conjecture that “then someone else would have invented it anyway”, is false.
Yet here, the truth is in the frames of time (information) and of language in the logical conjecture. To be more explicit, “If Joseph Swan had not invented the modern incandescent light bulb” is conditional precedent, therefore refers to the past. “Then someone else would have invented it anyway”, is a conjectural antecedent, therefore refers to the future.
The truth (and so the logic) is in the change of the past, therefore it is in the causal change of time, to the future.
The truth is, that the dynamics of the invention would have driven someone to make it anyway, but Swan got it first. The falsity is in the referal of the dynamics and specifically in the configuration of probability and precision. The transformation in time and dimension is driven by the dynamics of energy, and specifically of the dynamics of limitation, variation, motion and information. These dynamics denote that change will happen, this is fixed. The dimensional configuration and definition of the change is probable and variable, until it becomes real and fixed.
So in absence of reality i.e. the negation of the invention by Swan, the conjecture revamps to the condition of potentiality and the dynamics of energy transform the potentiality to reality.
This is the ABC solution to the problem of the so called “counterfactuals” in the philosophies of language, logic, information and communication and no less importantly, in the currency of the running present.
Finally three closing notes.
First, logic and so information and language and so communication, are provided and conveyed in the dimension of time which is dynamic and specifically in the running present. Dynamic.
Second, logic and language, are constructed and exchanged beween parties in relative interaction, organization and condition, and so in relative information and communication. Relative.
Third, energy, interaction, reproduction, biology, organisms, human beings, human mentality and intelligence and everything else, are integral parts in the energy driven evolutionary context of the universe and the planet. The features and properties apply universally and uniformly and human beings are parts (parts) of the energy context, not independent creatures. Human beings are In fact the highest interactive and reproductive creatures known, so it is natural and sensible that the accentuation of human logic and psychology in the human information management and in the control of motion is the highest, known. Human dependence and independence on the environment and on universal condition is likewise highly dynamic and always relative. Evolutionary relation (composition) rather than divine intelligence, explains the human simplicity and facility in the conception and comprehension of the energy fundamentals. Across universal, natural and human (technical) evolution and specifically through philosophy, science, academic discipline and the works of life, from theoretical physics and neurology, through to history, civilisation, arts, sports and athletics.
