Fair argument/point. However, infinity itself is a singularity w/o a balancing partner on the other end of the conceptual "seesaw". That is what I'm trying to illustrate.
Infinity has regions of existence completely unknowable to finity. So it is a logical modeling error to attempt to fully model/describe infinity from a finite reference. For finity, yes, we may require to have a plurality of finite references to "know/comprehend" something. However, that is not necessarily true for infinity. Infinity is not subject to the same laws as finity, & existentially so, not merely arbitrarily so. Infinity is distinct existentially from finity. In fact, I would say similar to the the vein of NP-completeness, this plurality/frame-of-reference requirement MUST NOT be true for infinity. Infinity must be distinct. Otherwise, residually, infinity == finity.
There are physical examples of this idea: the speed of light. It is a unique singularity speed-wise with respect to all sorts of physical attributes (time, space, mass) & has no equivalent. It is it's own frame-of-reference & singularly so. Absolute Zero Kelvin might be another example (although I'm less familiar with the details here). Anyhow, that's my $0.02.