No; the question asks what things <i>would have existed.</i>  This is a concept people use all the time in everyday life without provoking ontological crises.  E.g. if you say "he would have scored a touchdown if that last defender hadn't tackled him," everyone knows exactly what you mean. You can never be 100% certain about things that would have happened, so you qualify your conclusions, but it's not the case that you can't reasonably talk about such things.<p>I can't believe I just had to write that.  This is why forums are such a time sink.  If you were watching a football game with your friends and someone said "he would have scored if that guy hadn't tackled him" and you replied "how can you talk about touchdowns that don't exist?" everyone else would just roll their eyes and not invite you over anymore.  But here in the world of text these subtly graduated social cues don't exist; all you can do is reply with more text.  I wonder if there is some kind of solution to that.