I don’t think you are thinking of infiniti in the right way.
Infiniti can have constraints.
For instance, an infinitely long line is still infinite, even though it is lacking in other dimensions, and is thus constrained to one dimension.
Ironically, your video actually proves my point, as anyone who’s not a dinosaur can see. Electrons are not “tiny bits of matter”. It’s only measurement or, in other words, observation (your video actually identifies the two) which makes electrons behave, or seem, as such bits.
Another mistake the video makes is in presenting measurement/observation as a Platonic activity, immaculate perception, a pure eye just “being open” to the electrons. It fails to point out that such observation actually requires light to be reflected off of the electrons.
Well someone is not thinking in the right way.
I said, as we have been meaning, “infinitely large”, meaning unlimited in all directions. What other parameters are involved (color, density, whatever)is irrelevant.
No, your “point” was that Quantum Physics does not teach what that video about Quantum Physics is teaching.
Whether right or not, that is what they are teaching.
Infinity is an abstraction that can never be percieved, thus I don’t see how it’s a stretch to say that there could be infinitely large shapes.
The only way we can percieve infiniti is the sense of temporal infinity, something that never reaches an end, and you could have a circle where the end is always getting away from you no matter how far you travel, the end is never reached.
Second of all infinite does not mean unlimited in all directions, there could be an infinite shape which is infinitely large, but has a clear starting point, for instance at 0,0, there is nothing behind 0,0.
Is not.
Sauwelios wins! 
It doesn’t matter if you can “perceive” it. What matters is that you understand it. “Infinite” means “no boundary or limit”. And without a boundary, there is no shape to be had.
It can have a “starting point”. But it cannot also have an ending point. And it must have both in order to have “shape” or “form” beyond that of merely a line or plane (both void of having all dimensions). We are discussing the universe. By definition, the universe includes ALL dimensions.
No, what you are imagining is a uniformly sided shape.
A non-uniform polygon could have two infinite edges, but also be a well-defined shape.
Are we talking about the universe, all existence, or not?
Could be the universe, who knows what the shape of it is.
I do. It has no shape.
So you have travelled to the edges of the universe?
Unlike many, I use my mind for such journeys in time and space. I found that at no time could there ever be a limit to the space.
Did you use the book of Astral Projection? Or was this a home brew remedy?
It was the book of RM:AO.
And this is better than the Hubble telescope?
By FAR.
But more “different” than “better”. Instruments are for verifying, not determining.
Can you show me your pictures…or drawings, of the edge of the universe, or not-edge of the universe I mean.
Can I show you a picture of what isn’t there? Hmmm… could be an issue with that. But I can see why you are having trouble understanding. You seem to be trying to picture the absence of something. Logic has the advantage of not requiring pictures, although not excluding them either. It is Logic that informs/reveals that there is no edge. And it seems that Logic is not one of your preferred skills nor confidences.
My confidence is verified Logic. Unfortunately a large part of the verification is merely not being able to find anyone who can rationally disagree. I prefer someone who can also confidently agree. But we live in an age of insecurities and fear governing the lives of far too many people.
Can you think of any particular reason why this is not in principle a very good idea even if the hypothesis in question turns out to be true