Children are fascinated by the hypothetical and make-believe. They are seldom confused about what is real and what is imaginary, even when adults try to confuse them. I think that any epistemology must explain this remarkable fact. In particular I think there is a ‘global variable’ (software jargon) that is ‘true’ while hearing such stories. This cannot quite be so because while listening to a story on the radio, if mother says ‘its time for lunch’ there is no confusion in the child’s mind between the two worlds.

I think it is clear why we evolved to make this distinction. A simpler brain design would have been to deny and ignore such hypothetical stories. Such stories are fun and instructive however. They are adaptive not because they convey truth, but because they lead the hearer to consider consequences of similar decisions that people will need to make in real life, especially ethical decisions. But how is this accomplished?

There are several other counterfactual worlds that people effortlessly consider: shoulda, coulda, woulda, was, will-be. Also ‘If I were to do that then the following would happen.’. Also ‘perhaps he really did do that despite his denial, that would explain this.’. Modal logicians collect these sorts of qualifiers on propositions and try to find relationships between propositions from these different worlds. It seems that there is an open ended structure of such qualifications that even children grasp.