>>10896953Let's simplify your two statements in this way:
1. Not-executed implies not-alive today
2. Alive today implies executed
As you pointed out, (2) is the contrapositive of (1).
(1) is true because its antecedent is false; or, alternatively, because its consequent is true. A material conditional is false if and only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false: therefore any conditional with a false antecedent is true, and any conditional with a true consequent is also true.
(2) is also true because its antecedent is false (and its consequent is true). The situation is perfectly symmetrical with respect to (1) and there is no paradox (as is the case with every contrapositive). The apparent contradiction comes from the fact that assuming Marie alive today would imply that she had been executed. But no human being can live for over two centuries, so the antecedent is false and vacuously implies any consequent.
Now, IF we were to assume that humans can live for over two centuries and that Marie was still alive today, then (2) would be false (it would have a true antecedent and false consequent, since if we assume she is alive she can't have been executed, so the consequent is indeed false), but (1) would also be false, since it would also have a true antecedent (not-executed) and a false consequent (not-alive today). This is so under the working assumptions that Marie is still alive after over 200 years and that people who get executed die. You could also try to work under the assumptions that Marie is still alive after over 200 years AND people don't die when they get executed: but even in that case (1) and (2) would have the same truth-value (they would be both true).
