Sounds like you've read J.L. Borges the Library in Babel

His library is finite but the number of books (all possible combinations of letters) would exceed the number of estimated atoms in our universe by a tremendous magnitude. You could travel among recognizable copies of Moby Dick for your lifetime.

One of the imaginary librarians speculates that all is needed to reproduce this finite library is a single volume, since all books are limited to 26 letters and whatever the repeating format is. — Nils Loc

Yes, I`ve read his stories and others and I loved them!

Infinity also has no meaning if we are infinite creatures, because it's all relative to the scope of what we experience — Nils Loc

Now think at Laplace`s point: if we would live everything in universe at a point in time and if the universe is infinite, and we are infinite, then we should have lived all the possibilities, all the scenes of the movie without scrolling them. Here is the first contradiction in what you say: how can a infinite consciousness experience infinity from a relative point, if it experiences all the points?

In an infinite world maybe contradictions are permitted. The meaningless is meaningful. Infinity is finity, et cetera. — Nils Loc

Maybe, but in one part of it. Nobody says things have to repeat in an actually infinite world. In a limited world that begins a process of growing to infinity by repeating, maybe this rule of canceling would repeat in more parts of the universe, but this still doesn`t means this permitted contradictions would overlap other rules. Thinking at this, if ``Infinity is finity`` maybe finity could be infinity, and we only changed the positions( finity becomes infinity, infinity becomes finity and nothing changed).

I'm really trying hard to follow you here. In order to contain everything, there has to be something that does the containing, and that something falsifies the definition of everything? — puppet

Yes, it does falsifies the definition of universe, not of everything, because that something that does the containing in order to contain everything needs to contain even itself, and from here, if it`s limited, it can grow, but after this process we have a universe x containing himself, so by summing it and viewing it as an ensemble, we have 2x which isn`t contained. It`s like you have a circle containing a half-smaller circle, but this whole isn`t contained. If you try to contain it, you have another bigger container that isn`t contained and so on.

And I don't follow the "newest form" If all of creation stepped outside itself to contain itself, there would be another him? — puppet

After this process of stepping outside there would be a bigger creation, containing the old itself because it had to grow to contain itself, nothing of X dimensions can`t contain another thing of X dimensions, quantities/ itself, it has to be bigger and that bigger one, that ``new form`` is still not contained by himself, which would generate a bigger him and so on, ad infinitum.

Why is the idea of an infinite universe not logical? In fact, I wanted to show solely that the idea of a limited universe containing everything is not logical, because as he tries to contain himself there still is a new him not contained and if he doesn`t contain himself he doesn`t include everything and defies his own definition. And I delivered details that this definition of an universe as something that includes everything is properly used( ``the universe : all of space and everything in it`` etc.). And there are contradictions with the fact that universe would be limited in physics and logics: when you discover it`s limits, you should discover itself in it, as it contains everything and discover that the universe that contains himself within himself still doesn`t contains his ``newest form``, that double him.
You just didn`t understand what I have said there and my point: to prove this model of universe including everything within can`t be limited.

What are speaking about with the impossibility of the infinity is called ``possible infinite`` like the pi number. I wanted to prove that, in fact, the using of universe as a word for what we live in it`s actually incorrect, and no, science did only launched theories about ``the space we live in`` limits and have not yet provided strong proofs for this theories. Even if the space we live in is limited, it can`t be a universe according to our definitions of universe imposed by logic. Here I implied logic, rational thinking, and this rational thinking in what I wrote proves that what we call universe can`t be associated with limits. Please respond my argument with an counterargument using LOGIC, because we are speaking of metaphysics here.