Trying to be undogmatic, my initial reaction is, that the question is posed in a either/or type looking for answers, and this look degrades in accordance with expanding the point you mention, both temporally, spacially hence conceptuality of the matter under discussion.
This kind of conceptualization began in the middle ages, in an age of doubt, hence cogito ergo sum, the identity of such a construct beginning to form by a binary intellectual process.
Down the line , the cogito changed into esse est percipii, and that reduced the concept of beginning the quest for infinity away from the intellectual doubt toward a search for relative certainty starting with Leibnitz.
The infinite got integrated within the search for it, the perception could be envisioned either as compelled to extend the physical largesse of cosmological bodies even if approaching further and further optical limits, via the limits, including more and more sophisticated radiotelescopic limits.
The farther extended things are out there, the smaller they appear, and the perception of them are sharply reduced to minimum, before they return the question to a bounded nothingness.
Now here is the connection to the ontological , the one to which a scholastic reference is returned. There must be some thing beyond the limit of perception, beyond the horizon,as the lack of perception sets the limit.
This idea corresponds to the way the earth was said to be flat before it became spherical for the conceptual understanding to catch up.
And that is what supports the search into infinity of the large within the inner search with the very small.
The very small compose that which the very large boundaries view as dark matter, and this search has come up with the idea that it is pure energy, but so far having both material and energy characteristics.
The photon has both and this manifests the experience the inquiry can change the very state of whats is inquired.
If perception and its derivative, organic life is a bound to its very development, which is the idea that without perception of something there can not arise an existence beyond the perception of it ; (for that is the basic idea of 'esse est percipii ) then the search for boundaries contains this idea, and then it defines the mathematical limitations differentiating it, in terms of integrating these manifestation into a single concept.
Why must there be something beyond the limit of a boundary to suggest that the boundary itself is an artificial construct to uphold the mathematical description of it?
If a limitless boundary is defined as something else other than the content of it, beyond which there must be a nothingness which cannot be perceived, a better way of thinking of limits and boundaries could be would be into visualize the (universe)'es as falling systems which are always self contained, and the boundaries or sets become merely conventional ways of differentiating the cogito from the percipii.
But since the cogito has another boundary the percipii as a conditional requirement for ‘existence’ which is nothing else but a periphery of a more underlying construct- being, these two realms need to survive in the mode of
how the bounded intellect must be linked to its appreception, the modus operans becomes the glue, for some its god, for some its an eternal return, visualized by a spatial-temporal reintegration for ever, where such a vision again begs on the argument of eternal as another infinite set.
The ultimate question is: Can immeasurability limited, become the understood test for changing- , not cutting away the scholastic notoion that the finite be always the modus operans in defining the degree of overlap between how infinite and finite sets define their content?
Or, are we to talk of certainty as its primal cause of manifestation, then such musings revert to either this or that, and it falls apart.
But if we let the whole idea of excluding sets include into the opposing idea, then again as you implied, the relationships of the bounded dark matter become its conditional existence, in it’s self , as to be able to be it’self.
The most that can be said is that the idea of infinity has to include within the specific bounded self, in order to exist. That idea is the product of the percipii, which also needs to be included in the idea of the Cogito, where that is the idea of a higher power.