We can't talk about what would be, only what is.

...if a given X extension, on which you speculate on what could become the case, in its limited contextual frame of reasoning, does n´t present any contradiction, either internal, nor with a similar relative limitedly extended observation done in the past, then we can accept that there´s no reason to positively assume you can´t speculatively talk about it, as an compared proportional example on what can come to happen based on the given previous descriptive models, mind yourself´s relative in scope and function, presented in the past which do end up fitting the relative extension of the hypothesis proposed ...however one needs to clarify that the speculative possible open frames for the future are not good for confronting the past or the present...and why ?...to my view it is the case that such models and relative scopes cannot ever superimpose themselves and substitute previous or actual ongoing occurrences, which again mind yourself s, did happen to be the case and are absolutely contrary to a proponent formulated hypothesis on which we have no good final grounds to substantiate and are clearly contradicted by experience and observation, even if intended as parallel universes unfolding possibility´s...

On the nature of speculation, in resume :
...from a limited in scope observation in the past a perfectly fitting limited in scope proponent possibility in the future...

...think on the classical comparison between Newton´s/Einstein models for gravity...it is not the case that Newton´s model does not fit the data, but rather that its lesser resolution lacks in depth by comparison...

(the focus of this post is against agency in the subject, or simply put against the idea of choice...hope it helps)

...it is not the case that I could have done otherwise, although it is the case that tomorrow I can do allot of things...

The "flaws" in your argument are:
1. You are confusing the word "then" as in the logical IF-THEN with the the psychological "then" implying time.
2. There are ontological issue about the word "is" regarding its covert predictive status.

Note that the mathematical foundation underpinning Truth Tables is static set theory, not the dynamics of what we call "reality". In short, logic is (merely) a sub-topic of general semantics

...thus meaning that my relative in scope analysis on what the future will bring can fit the data partially once it lacks sufficient depth or resolution to establish a clear contradiction with what must happen...if valid is valid not because is right but because it does not address any known active contradictory element in between past observations and the speculative frame proposed for the future...its "visual range" is not contradictory with what is perceived from past previous examples also limited account on events...its validity imply´s a perfectly relative fitting on what is asked and what can be answered in such question...we tend to think on questions as open game but in fact they are n´t, they do meant meaning in the asking and such meaning is relative to the actual knowledge present at the time they are proposed...what truly happens which does confuse a correct attempt on the problem is that often while or knowledge progresses we use the same question to mean different things...the question externally is the same but as we go its meaning internally progresses on what is actually asked...

...analysis on dynamics can be presented in a statical form...

You are begging the question. The problem word here is "can". The ontogical arguments raise the issue of whether "can" is to be replaced by "should".

...rather what can or cannot, what should or should not...necessity cannot be established without knowing what we are talking about...the word here as in any ontological matter is nature...in the case the nature of epistemic processes...throwing dynamics on the air does n´t ad or subtract a bit on the problem !

...in fact I did addressed the matter better and deeper then anyone else around by clarifying the relative meaning of "can" while contextualizing the correct place of "should"...

...whatever it is the case "should".
(there´s no other better criteria then the fact that it did happen...)
...whatever "can" be the case is a relative in scope assessment upon a relative in scope possible "event"..."can" applies precisely because there is no sufficient data to establish a "should"....although it might seem so, what it asks is not certainty but rather coherence !

...now given previous examples on sheer stupidity some are probably wondering what is a "relative in scope event"...
...a "relative in scope event" refers to a relative description or conception fitting the data to an extent (a functional description)...such extent of what is asked to fit should match !

Disregarding the tangents from Fil, we can solve the problem quite easily.
The first flaw is that a false statement does not entail anything. That is what a contradiction does. A false atomic statement entails that its negation is true in FOPL. A contradiction can entail anything.

Also, your example is pretty bad. The statement, "If I am driving, then I am swimming" does not entail a contradiction, not in the least (and this can be demonstrated if you translate the statement into a logical syntax). Perhaps it is physically impossible for me to do both, but it is not logically impossible.

I will not get into possible worlds here. However, there seems to be recurring problems in your line of reasoning:

1) You confuse logic with experience.
and
2) You do not understand how false statements and contradictions work.

Think about it.