++> William Elliot responding to David Martorana
 ++> on  "Infinite-Imagination" ?
 
 DM> ..... "Infinite" is only a simple word if it is not thought
 DM>> 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.
 
 WE> Indeed, it will always be an unreachable target for to be otherwise,
 WE> it would be finite.  But so what:  1,2,3,4,....; raise you an infinity
 WE> 1,2,3,... 1,2,3...; 'tain't nothing infinite infinities 1,2,3...
 WE> 1,2,3... 1,2,3... ***.
 
 WE> *** meaning repeating 1,2,3... again and again infinitely.  So even
 WE> if you can imagine infinity as a something .... you're imagination
 WE> won't include how infinitely imaginable imagination is.  To wit, the
 WE> limits of imagination are unimaginable, wouldn't you say?
 
     I darn't say anything in fear you would confront me with more
     evil 1,2,3's...!
 
 DM>> Since time has no orientation or definition beyond the convenience
 DM> of human clocks, sequencing pales among relative juxtapositions
 
 WE> Hm, are you're on to something relativistic? -)
 
     ............Isn't EVERYTHING ....at least sort of?
 
 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.
 
 WE> Consider the integers.  First there is 0 and secondly there is
 WE> the successor function S that adds one to an integer.  So S0 is
 WE> 1 and S1 or SS0 is 2, etc. Now all of these 0, S0, SS0, SSS0, etc
 WE> are all the integers.  Do note that most of these integers will
 WE> never be generated.  Even with computers and decimal or hexadecimal
 WE> numbers, most tho not all, integers will never be generated. So
 WE> when we talk about Z, the set of integers 0,1,2,3... we are actually
 WE> talking about a process that can be continued as long as resources
 WE> can be made available.  It is but an allusion that this process
 WE> (verb), is called a thing (noun).  I call this reckless thinking.
 WE> For example, thinking having recklessness.  The first sentence
 WE> considers one thing, magically the second considers, not one but
 WE> two things.
 
         ........most yes! especially if not understood !
         "you cuda been a contenda".....
 
 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?
 
 WE> Can you imagine something unimaginable? -)
 
     Yes, but the language to express it is awkward !
 
 DM> The imagination is the only containment of reality we presently
 DM> seem to know-
 
 WE> Old story tales, tell me some new ones. -)  How about the Hindu,
 WE> it's all divine imagination, those infinities of universes.  Do
 WE> you know that one?
 
     No! You most always have me at a disadvantage in not knowing
     most of what you are talking about ....but it is always pleasant,
     thought provoking and "taken" as  well meant 
 
     Sorry!
     The imagination is the only contentment of reality we presently
     seem to know-               ^^^^^^^^^^^
                  ...I'm sure some _also_ Hindu might agree!
 
 ... Philosophy's a poke; numbers ARE boring; if true we die
     anyway ...for now....yes!
                                \/
                                oo ... Dave
 
     NOTE: If, as you've often entertained to suggest, that all most
     often comes down to numbers, a question peeks shy-
     but I'm not yet smart enough to know what it is well enough to
     ask it.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------