Life has infinite levels of depth if you keep peeling back layers and look down a bit further. And when you think you know something, dig deeper and you realize you know less than you thought.
if one can accept this, then one can accept that any perceptions about reality he may have can only be at best a "useful model," and such models should be constantly updated in response to new data and observations. of course, this means that there is quite a bit of incentive in deliberately shaping the models people use to perceive reality...
> Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the universe in its totality is finite or infinite. Estimates suggest that the whole universe, if finite, must be more than 250 times larger than the observable universe. Some disputed estimates for the total size of the universe, if finite, reach as high as 10^10^10^122 megaparsecs, as implied by a suggested resolution of the No-Boundary Proposal. [1]
Secondly, rays (the geometric construct that have a point origin and extend infinitely in one direction) are infinitely long, but any point on them is finitely far away from the end. Why couldn't the universe be the same way -- unbounded in one direction (of scale), but bounded in the other?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size_and_regions