>>> David Martorana on "Infinite-Imagination" ? 
 WE> You're right, the eternity of heaven and hell and infinite
 WE> divinities are just our imagination.
 DM> There's an even chance that EVERYTHING' resides in an imagination 
An interesting speculation.  Rather unprovable as is it's negation.
 DM> That we can imagine something, is our primary grasp of what
 DM> CAN be for us (beyond the slow accumulations of science). 
Imagination is potent medicine for the future.
Even in
 DM> science, much-all of what is discovered passes through our
 DM> imaginations in the process of BECOMING an IS, 
Indeed, this is why it is potent.
 DM> Some limited experience (empirics) does suggest (to me)
 DM> that what can be imagined IS, CAN, and often DOES become into the
 DM> shapes we can realize 
I imagine so. -)
(perhaps even more beyond our natural or
 DM> synthetic senses). "Infinite" is only a simple word if it is not
 DM> thought about. Once "infinite" enters serious thought, it passes
 DM> quickly beyond human rational (imagination); and becomes more a
 DM> mind-reach target .....a hoped for plum to invite into imagination.
Indeed, it will always be an unreachable target for to be otherwise, it would 
be finite.  But so what:  1,2,3,4,....; raise you an infinity 1,2,3,... 
1,2,3...; 'tain't nothing infinite infinities 1,2,3... 1,2,3... 1,2,3... ***. 
 *** meaning repeating 1,2,3... again and again infinitely.  So even if you 
can imagine infinity as a something .... you're imagination won't include how 
infinitely imaginable imagination is.  To wit, the limits of imagination are 
unimaginable, wouldn't you say?
 DM> Expanding in humor and though a steely eyed atheist, I must ever
 DM> consider that awkward possibility that the human imagination is
 DM> THE'  sub construct of our working dimension package (REALITY);
 DM> _a_  home for BOTH God/s, gravity and otherishes.  
Hm, 'tis so, 'tis very so.  But shh, don't let the theists know that their 
gnome comes with a troll.
Since time has
 DM> no orientation or definition beyond the convenience of human clocks,
 DM> sequencing pales among relative juxtapositions (likely meaningless).
Hm, are you're on to something relativistic? -)
 DM> With all possibles on the table, there is no "infinite", just a
 DM> transient term to fill in for our present ignorance of a structure.
Consider the integers.  First there is 0 and secondly there is the successor 
function S that adds one to an integer.  So S0 is 1 and S1 or SS0 is 2, etc.  
Now all of these 0, S0, SS0, SSS0, etc are all the integers.  Do note that 
most of these integers will never be generated.  Even with computers and 
decimal or hexadecimal numbers, most tho not all, integers will never be 
generated.  
So when we talk about Z, the set of integers 0,1,2,3... we are actually 
talking about a process that can be continued as long as resources can be 
made available.  It is but an allusion that this process (verb), is called a 
thing (noun).  I call this reckless thinking.  For example, thinking having 
recklessness.  The first sentence considers one thing, magically the second 
considers, not one but two things.
 DM> An increase in specifically designed (genetic) cortical mass might
 DM> likely allow some extended understanding of such within our
 DM> lifetimes (or at least that of our children). YET! even that
 DM> advance would likely just make known other dimensional dilemmas
 DM> .....another and another?
Can you imagine something unimaginable? -)
 DM> The imagination is the only containment of reality we presently
 DM> seem to know from "creator to creature" and how many tiny feet dance
 DM> upon that head of pin.                     .............I think....!
Old story tales, tell me some new ones. -)  How about the Hindu, it's all 
divine imagination, those infinities of universes.  Do you know that one?
... Philosophy's a joke.  If it isn't, you're taking life too seriously.
---
---------------