# Stubborn Highlanders

Posted by turmarion

Now that we’ve recapped, let’s explore the free will of immortals again.

Going back to here, let’s examine the following scenario:

Connor MacLeod has solemnly vowed never to eat a broccoli fudge sundae. Though we don’t and probably can’t, know that the universe is, in fact, eternal, for purposes of the discussion we’ll assume it is. Further, we’ll assume that Connor has the means to planet hop in case Earth ever becomes uninhabitable. Thus he will truly live *forever*, not just until the universe’s heat death. Thus, for Connor, “never” means never *through all eternity*.

Now, in probability, the likelihood of something occurring is between zero (it *cannot* occur–more on this later) and one (it *must* occur–this needs to be unpacked, too, but we’ll hold off for just a bit). Things that *must* occur (bachelors must be single, two plus two must be four, a finite whole must be larger than any of its parts) are necessary truths with a probability of one (mathematically, P=1); things that *cannot* occur (a bachelor being married, two plus two equaling 85, a finite part being bigger than its associated whole) are logical contradictions with a probability of zero (P=0). Everything else is a *possibility* of greater or lesser likelihood (high likelihood of the sun rising tomorrow, P>0.9999999999 ; low likelihood of Klingon invasion, P<0.000000001). It’s important to note that a probability higher than zero, *no matter how small*, is still a **possibility **(this, too, is an important point). The sun almost certainly will rise, but it* might* not; Klingon invasion is vanishingly unlikely, but it *could* occur.

If we assume that Connor keeps his word, forever, this *appears *to be equivalent to saying that the probability that he eats a broccoli fudge sundae is zero (mathematically, P(B)=0, where B means “Connor does eat the sundae,” and P(B)=0 means “the probability of Connor eating the sundae equals zero). This, is indeed puzzling, though. How can even an immortal say with *one hundred percent certainty* that he will never, never, *ever* eat such a sundae? One can imagine (especially if you’re a scriptwriter for *Highlander*) hypotheticals that might tie the hands of even an immortal and force a change of mind.

I think the issue here is what we mean by “probability”, “can”, “will”, “can’t”, and “won’t”, and how we define probabilities of one and zero. In short, we’re discussing the interpretation of probability.

I said above that something with P=0 *cannot *occur, and with P=1 *must *occur; but I’m not sure that’s quite right. Some things are *by definition* impossible–married bachelors or parts bigger than a finite whole, for example. Such things certainly have a probability of zero, but this seems like a trivial restatement of their impossibility. Likewise, some things, by definition–e.g. that a bachelor is unwed–*must *be so and thus have a probability of one. This, too, seems tautologous. To assign probabilities to such things seems redundant.

Normally, when we talk of such things, we mean something like this, from the first Wikipedia link above, my emphasis in boldface:

If an event is

sure, then it willalwayshappen, andno outcome not in this event can possibly occur. If an event isalmost sure, then outcomes not in this event aretheoretically possible; however,the probability of such an outcome occurring is smaller than any fixed positive probability, and therefore must be 0. Thus, one cannotdefinitivelysay that these outcomes willneveroccur, but can formost purposesassume this to be true.

The converse would be true about sure *not *to happen vs. *almost* sure not to happen.

Thus, to pull out an old chestnut, the molecules of air in this room move randomly. In principle, every single molecule of air in the room, being in the gaseous state, could all bounce into a single corner of the room at the same time, leaving the rest of the room a vacuum in which I would suffocate. This does not violate any law of physics, and while it is almost certain not to occur, “*almost* certain” is not *quite* the same as “certain”.

*However*. We’re talking about an infinite time-scale. Hypothetically, given an infinite amount of time, anything that* can* happen in a given universe *will* happen, sooner or later. Sooner or later all the air particles in some room somewhere *will *all simultaneously jump into one corner. It’s like the cliche of the monkeys that over a sufficiently long time will randomly type a Shakespeare play. True, the chances of this are small; note the quote from the linked article, my emphasis:

Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of

Hamlet.It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 26^{20}= 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 10^{28}). In the case of the entire text ofHamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters. Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^{183,946}to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10^{183,946}, or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^{360,783}.

As the paragraph says, these numbers can “barely be conceived in human terms”. If you said that this was, in years, a trillion trillion trillion…and then said “trillion” about 2700 more times–*that* many times the age of the universe–well, that *still *doesn’t really adequately convey the size. However, these numbers are insignificant, practically nothing, compared with the vast sweep of infinity. Given an *infinite* time, sooner or later the monkey will indeed produce *Hamlet*, however many universes may be born, live, and die in the interim.

Thus, there seems to be a distinction between things that have a probability of zero because they could not happen on* any* time scale in *any* universe (the married bachelor again), and things that have a zero probability, or very close to it, on a finite time scale, but which become inevitable on an infinite time scale (the monkey and *Hamlet*). Connor MacLeod’s decision never to eat a broccoli fudge sundae is certainly not in the first category. There is no logical (as opposed to aesthetic) reasons for it to be impossible or contradictory. That would seem to land it square in the second category. However, if this is the case, it seems that no matter how stubborn Connor is, he’ll eventually cave in. We’ve already said that given *unlimited* time, anything that is logically possible, that is, possible in principle–anything that *can* happen, which eating a broccoli fudge sundae certainly is–*will* happen. Some unique set of circumstances (perhaps too much Scotch!) which will compel Connor to change his mind will *eventually* come to pass.

This, however, would seem to contradict the ability of Connor to hold firm; which would imply a lack of free will; which we insist he actually *has*. So what gives? What’s even worse is another factor that seems to call into question Connor’s free will; but eleven hundred words is more than enough for this post, so we’ll look at that next time.

*Part of the series “You Pays Your Money and Takes Your Chances: Free Will“*

Posted on 15/01/2014, in Christianity, metaphysics, philosophy, religion, theology and tagged Christianity, Christopher Lambert, determinism, eternal recurrence, free will, heaven, Hell, Highlander, metaphysics, philosophy, physics, probability, religion, theology, univesalism. Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pingback: Sea Battles and What Will Be | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: Universalism (What the Hell?!): Index | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: The Divine Exception, Revisited | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: It’s All in the Mind | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: You Pays Your Money and Takes Your Chances: Free Will (Index) | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: Simply Irresistible (or not?) | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: Choices and Consequences | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: The Mind is Like a Mirror Bright | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: Stubborn Highlanders Revisited, and Antinomies of Pure Reason | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Pingback: Destiny; or, Were You Meant to Read This Post? | The Chequer-board of Nights and Days