it is more likely than you would think...

Pioneering logician Bertrand Russell often used Jell-O as part of an example to establish the troubling implication of a specific conditional proposition with the form of ¬(Q → P)∧ ¬(P → Q). Even though Jell-O is an arbitrary component of his example, Russell singled it out due to its contradictory and somewhat ironic nature. He marveled that something so colorful and whimsical owed its existence to animal byproducts. Russell's example is:

Rampant Jell-O consumption by the King of England is neither necessary nor sufficient for the
existence of God.

While it would intuitively seem that any manner of Jell-O consumption by the King of England would have little implication on the rest of the world, Russell’s conditional statement is inherently false according to the rules of propositional logic. After the variables have been inputed into a truth table, not only is rampant Jell-O consumption by a king necessary or sufficient for God to exist, but everything is necessary or sufficient for everything. The following example follows the same pattern, but without Jell-O:

Bundt cake is neither necessary nor sufficient for the survival of people named Janet.

Again, while absurd, this statement is false and bundt cake must persist for the survival of people named Janet. These conditional sentences have had troubling ramifications for logicians and philosophers. The irrationality of these conditionals may be due to the fact that propositional logic does not always conform to the manner in which we understand language intuitively. But if this is not the case, and If logical reasoning can deduce truths about the nature of the universe, then sentences following the structure of Russell’s Jell-O example would suggest a rigid determinism in a clockwork universe devoid of free will.