Final answer:
Determining the meaning and truth value of counterfactual statements can be based on logical consistency, empirical evidence, and correspondence theory of truth, all of which do not require the existence of possible worlds. Philosophical debates remain regarding the nature of truth and reality, with different theories and problems enriching the discussion.
Step-by-step explanation:
Counterfactual statements pose hypothetical scenarios which are contrary to known facts. The question of determining the meaning and truth value of such statements without invoking the concept of possible worlds is complex, as it touches upon the fundamental nature of truth and reality. Philosophers debate whether truth is objective and exists independently of our ability to verify or conceive of it. For instance, a counterfactual like "If the Earth were flat, then ..." can be discussed based on logical consistency and empirical evidence rather than citing possible worlds. Correspondence theory of truth suggests that statements relate to facts and, thereby, a single reality. Empirical claims are also guided by evidence and cannot support contradictory truths simultaneously. Aspects like moral responsibility in the absence of free will, the reality of religious experiences, and the Gettier problem all contribute to broader philosophical inquiries into what constitutes knowledge and truth without necessarily referencing the notion of multiple possible realms or universes.