1, I can't answer it. In the Halcion days before my father told me this theory there was no doubt in my mind that people would never run out new ideas but now I'm not so sure.
You did. Now your answer is clear to me, and we can move on. How do you imagine the state and nature of such a world? It would surely be a world which has run out of problems and issues to solve. I imagine it would seem something like a 'perfect' world, from which point humanity will live in an unchanging and constant world for the rest of their existence.
it sounds to me like you're completely missing the point and that you just don't get this theory at all.
I'm sure we'll get there eventually. This is what discussions are for, aren't they?
And that leaves me with feelings of despair and frustration.
Give it time. Be patient. If it doesn't work one way, we'll try another.
The problem is not with the imagination of mankind, but with the limitations of the physical world.
We (or at least i) have been talking about ideas and the limitation of human imagination in the creation of new ideas. This was the result of your raising 'the theory when applied to human language,' during which, to the best of my recollection, you never stated the general theory.
Even if man's imagination does turn out to be boundless the theory states that the possibilities of the physical world are not.
I'm not too sure how the theory applies to the physical world. I've read your idea about 'molecules, atoms and matter,' and if this is 'the theory applied to the physical world,' then I've read about it afterall.
As I was doing that I thought about this other theory that says that there are only so many ways that you can arrange molecules, atoms and matter in any given space therefore the possibilities of absolutely everything is finite and limited.
If this is the same as 'the theory applied to the physical world' - fine.
Even if man's imagination does turn out to be boundless the theory states that the possibilities of the physical world are not.
First of all, you must explain to me how human imagination is 'limited' by the physical world. Describe what it means to be 'outside of human imagination,' or 'outside the limits of the physical world' when it concerns human imagination. It seems to me that human understanding progresses through the application of human imagination, so that if something cannot be contained by human imagination, it is impossible for humans to understand, that it is also outside of human understanding. So what does it mean for something to be 'outside of human understanding'? Isn't it redundant to talk of such a thing?
Also, are emotions 'part of the physical world'? Are ideas really 'part of the physical world'? Is there a clear channel between the human mind and the physical world? Why should i hold it to be self-evident the idea that human imagination, and, indeed, the human experience, is directly influenced by the physical world in this way?
Secondly, does your theory take into account such sometimes surreal ideas within quantum mechanics? There has been at least one kind of split in physics: Newtonian physics and quantum physics (by the way, i am not a physicist, so i am liable to bite off more than i can chew). It was easier to conceive of the idea during the days before the occurrence of quantum physics that some day science will be able to eventually provide a scientific explanation behind every possible physical phenomenon. But once the progression of science took a turn and started dissecting the world (although, i understand that more basic idea existed since the time of democritus...) - from molecules to atoms and to the subatomic, a vision of such eventuality became uncertain . A limit to the physical world? That, it seems, is very far in the horizon indeed.
Wasn't I clear enough?
Apparently not. Not to me anyway.
I tried to explain it to her that no matter how I worded it no matter how eloquently and clearly I laid it all out she just didn't get it. It's as if it just went in one ear and out the other and it was painful and frustrating having to explain it over and over again and getting nowhere. That's what I'm starting to feel about you now.
That's rather unfair. If you look back at our correspondence, i hope you'll find that it deserves a better evaluation than that. We have made some progress, haven't we?
I tried my best, and that is about as much as i can offer.
I've asked this question on Yahoo Answers and they are all saying the theory is true.
There was a time in human history when 'they were all saying' the earth was flat. Continue on your own scrutiny and study full arguments until you're convinced. Don't depend on mere basic judgements, on people simply 'saying the theory is true.'
One thing that bothered me most is that I can hardly find anyone who understands how this theory works and why it bothers me. You are one of perhaps two people on the planet that I can actually talk to about this. And if you can't understand then I’ve just about lost all hope
To continue a theme in this thread, I have my limits. I can tell you, very frankly, that i am an expert in nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Not even close. It's too bad that with millions of far more capable people living on this planet, you chose me to depend upon to be your omniscient beacon of light which you'd hope would shine through the occasional grey mists within your understanding. It's quite abit of pressure. I had never considered myself to be anymore than a contributor to this stimulating discussion. I take it a step at a time (or a post at a time). Your 'pain, frustration and loss of hope' seems to be your own doing.
You should think about spreading out your philosophical correspondence. Have you tried putting your philosophical problems to philosophy forums? I'm sure you can give the members there a lot of fun with your theory. The progress they could make with your theory may well go some way in positively influencing your state of mind.
And that's bad because what I loved about creativity was that people could keep coming up with new ideas forever.
As things are, there seems to be a lot on your plate upon which to apply your creativity. Even if there is a limit, from the position we are all in, the end appears lost beyond the infinite.
Which has immediately reminded me of another point - if we can consider every human to have ever lived and will ever live to be unique, then we have another reason to believe that each book will be written with a unique style and consist of unique content. Any two authors from any period producing books which are exactly the same seems impossible with this analogy in mind.
, you would experience the universe in a massively different way, what if you were then to evolve even more amazing sensory attributes the universe would be completely different again for you. 
