What Does Not Follow From Logical Possibility

Anything at all that does not contradict itself or any other logical truth by necessity falls into one of three categories: it is true, it is possibly true but unprovable, or it could have been true had some metaphysical circumstances been different.  Something that is not logically possible cannot exist or be true, but something that is logically possible may or may not exist or be true.  Being possible is not enough to make something true by necessity.  After all, it is hypothetically possible for gravity to not exist, for horses to fly, for extraterrestrial life to exist, and for no minds other than mine to exist, but these things are either false (as far as perceptions reveal in the case of the first two) or unverifiable (in the case of the last two).  For certain things, this might seem obvious.

For other things, the distinction is far more nuanced.  What future events might occur, which are always in the process of being constructed and determined until they always happen, and the future events that will ultimately occur are not necessarily the same.  The host of metaphysical and epistemological possibilities which encompass the whole of what does not conceptually contradict reason are not all reflected in the things that actually exist.  In proving to oneself that it is logically possible for a given concept to reflect reality, one has not always proven that the concept does indeed reflect reality.

For instance, realizing the pure conceptual possibility of a "human" consciousness existing without the body that would make it human is not the same as believing that such a thing exists or proving that this is anything more than a possibility.  Communicating the logical possibility of this is not the same as asserting it is true.  Only a fool with a poor ability to understand both others and reason itself thinks that hypothetical examples which prove or disprove conceptual truths must prove that the hypothetical event or existent (an existent is a thing that exists, like a law of logic, a mind, or a physical object) is more than a mere possibility.

Hypotheticals can still indeed prove certain facts about the nature of various concepts even when they cannot prove that the concept.  To overlook this fact is to cut oneself off from recognition of logical truths that establish certain things without the need to ever even attempt to find a concrete example of hypotheticals.  After all, proving that something is possible means no specific examples beyond hypotheticals are needed to know with absolute certainty that specific ideas are or could be true!  At the same time, it does not follow from logical possibility that many concepts are true.  This is the nature of reason.  It has the power to reveal conceptual truths even when those concepts are otherwise wholly disconnected from reality.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.