Can you talk about “could” without using synonyms like “can” and “possible”? …. Can you describe the corresponding state of the world without “could”, “possible”, “choose”, “free”, “will”, “decide”, “can”, “able”, or “alternative”?
My point being that you set out to explain “could” without “able” and you do it by way of elaboration on a state being “able to be reached”.
What you decide to label the concept does not change the fact that the concept you’ve decided upon is a composite concept that is made up of two more fundamental concepts: reaching (or transitioning to) and possibility.
You’ve provided 1 sense of possibility (in terms of reachability), but possibility is a more fundamental concept than “possible to be reached”.
Can you talk about “could” without using synonyms like “can” and “possible”? …. Can you describe the corresponding state of the world without “could”, “possible”, “choose”, “free”, “will”, “decide”, “can”, “able”, or “alternative”?
My point being that you set out to explain “could” without “able” and you do it by way of elaboration on a state being “able to be reached”.
What you decide to label the concept does not change the fact that the concept you’ve decided upon is a composite concept that is made up of two more fundamental concepts: reaching (or transitioning to) and possibility.
You’ve provided 1 sense of possibility (in terms of reachability), but possibility is a more fundamental concept than “possible to be reached”.