Inevitability+Axiom

Other Ideas, etc. It's a chain form of reasoning provided one is willing to take it that far, so it is potentially something that could lead on forever, and maybe even imply other things, or explain everything, or eventually come back to disprove itself, except if the original idea says something is true, it would say it is untrue, and if it is untrue, then it can't be true, and so on. Maybe if somebody went over it with care and a limitless amount of time, he/she could explain it all and maybe contradict itself but logically and without leading to insane conclusions. But then again, we don't have a limitless amount of time, do we? At least not in the present, always in the future [yes, I'm making a cruel joke here: the future we will technically never get to unless we define it as a fixed point of time, but the better stuff we will never get to in our lives]. Perhaps there are other possibilities [yes, we're sure there are many more, but we don't have the time to establish every possible idea; that, in and of itself, is humanly impossible, but we leave the readers these statements in the hopes that they will pursue the mission of Insanity and Perturbations. This will always have near-infinite potential, which is why it will never be completed [it supports itself as long as we assume there is no contradictory rule [see the __Foundation Rule]__ and if we include/do not include circular logic] due to shortage of manpower and resources available. By near-infinte we mean that there is a strong probability that new connections and ideas can be made so long as the language used and the meanings attached are huge in terms of combinations, not necessarily infinite [because if it was, that would mean there would be an infinite amount of words and meanings, and perhaps the universe doesn't have enough things we can describe and therefore use incommunication, and even if there were, we humans are most likely incapable of comprehending it all, or at least acknowledging it]. I wonder if I should rename the __Inevitable Reasoning__ postulate to the somewhat more appropriate __Inevitablility Axiom__ [if we hold it to be true that it is a universal truth that is not in need of a proof].
 * Inevitable Reasoning is this: any form of idea, when reasoned enough, will inevitably lead to an ever-growing base of connections between old and new ideas, which spurs the creation of even more ideas and connections.** In a way an exponential increase, becasue you could go about reasoning a plethora of different ways. You could start by associating a given idea with others that are related in some way, or create connections between the original idea and apparently unrelated ideas [forging connections], or create connections between the original idea and

=Other/Part 2, Inevitability Axiom= Despite the established axiom that any iodea can spawn another, creating an infinitely tangled web of connections and new ideas, there are limits. A **given idea most likely does not have a true infinite amount of relations, due inpart of the limits of existing languages and content we use. There is a strong probability of a finite number of relations to any one idea, and random/unrelated/forged connections are not taken into acount here in order to explain the finite-hypothesis/anti-thesis of the Inevitability Axiom [meaning random/out-of-context ideas, not just anything that could trigger a response]. Based upon this hypothesis of finite-ness, it can be postulated that there is a set [but unknown] boundary of new ideas that can be made to tie in with a central idea[by unknown, they are nonexistent yet real, and only identified when chosen to be, based onthe context]. that is, a speak or web of thoughts could be predicted depending on the person, the context of the speak, and any possible deviation from the central ide [think Lapplace's Demon]. So there is a defined, yet obscure path one could take with a given idea, and using a gigher-plane statistical simple formula V, based on**
 * VI= {[number of most frequent connections * or + the most logical deviation]/finite number of all possible directions of an idea** } **+ or - Speaker/Reciever's mental index of mentality**

By logical deviation, any possible connection that remains within defined prarameters, determined by the person and situation, Most frequent connections-the path most travelled by the speaker/participant of the thought-evolution, to be determined by specific, yet random samples Finite number of possible directions wil lbe determined not including outlier connections Speaker/Receiver's index of mentality-how the person's mind willl interpret an idea and from a response VI, because it can be considered almost a vectoral formula, since it includes magnitude [significance and type of] and direction [where and how a thought-web will evolve] of given idea. With this, one could potentially predict the likelihood of the path a conversation or exchange of ideas. Not absolute, but a giver of probabilities, unless everything about two people are known and the surroundings, and then some intellect could foresee the future, but that is not the argument here. This conclusion states that there is probably a finite chain of ideas, but it doesn't violate the previous part of the Axiom, since we factored out the random connections. It is still stated that the "finite" chain could still keep on going if pursued [not discounting loops], but that it will most likely be finite, depending on the subject, observer, and scenarion [not to mention that any statiscally mean person will not pursue a subject after x amount of time]. A given time interval should be taken into account for this VI formula, so it's not just a random generator of idea-directions for any time period. Time is another crucial factor, since stress of making new connections influence's the speaker's decision on what to add to the chain. In other words, an Interest factor should also be added, as the subject's interest in the subject [besides the time-factor] is not to considered insignificant. If desired, a function modeling idea/neural activity can be made, to show how the rate of thought also affects decisions and consequences to actions [in this case a reaction to an idea]. What does all this bode for idea-chains? They may be undefined, but not necessarily infinite networks. That is the Inev. Axiom contd. ina nutshell, and to further illustrate its own point, this part was derived from the first, that is, they support eachother and cause one another; as long as one exists, the other must exist as well.