Locke's theory on the inconceivable

Let me make the title a little more clear. I understand enough about Locke to know he believed all knowledge comes from sensory experiences. That settles knowledge - but what about the conceivability of things that may be more abstract, whether they are genuine knowledge or just fancy? Take the concept of infinity for example. We all seem to have some kind of conceptual grasp on this idea, but as Kant showed, there is no way we could have derived this concept through sensory experience. Wouldn’t Locke’s empirical theory of mind suggest we couldn’t even know what it is? Wouldn’t we have to say “Infinity? What’s that?” I think I know enough about Locke to know what he had to say about fanciful thinking, such as the idea of a mermaid. He assumed we could be imaginative by taking pieces of disparate sensory experiences and associating them together. With the mermaid, we could take the experience of seeing a woman and associate that with the experience of seeing a fish (I’m not sure what he had to say about the belief in such mental creations, but that’s a question for another thread). So would he have explained the more abstract concepts in this way? How, prey tell, would he have done it for infinity? Even if he did explain it this way, I can’t see how the concept of infinity would be the result - any such rearranging of experience pieces would always be finite. I’ve searched high and low for a Lockian take on this issue, but to no avail. Anyone here have any insight?

john locke’s essay concerning human understanding, book 2, chapter 17

ilt.columbia.edu/publication … r0217.html

-Imp

Thanks Imp