Finiteness? an Introspective

Recently, I've been attempting to learn everything there is to know about probability ever created and more hyperbole dot dot dot. Along the way, I encountered an old question from my days at University (all those weeks ago). Basically, it comes down to a question of the universe: can we ever encounter 'the end' of something? I find myself giving conflicting answers.

(Note: I'm not talking about the end of some abstraction like the end of an emotion or a state of mind. I'd say I don't deal with crock, but thats patently false. So instead I'll just say right now I feel rather physicalist)

In one scenario, I try to imagine minimizing and shrinking matter. In the material world it seems we should be able to find an endpoint. This seems a little difficult intuitively, as from our vantage point in the world is we encounter a seemingly endless world, and the violent torrent of our thoughts spins endlessly.

However, I think we should be able to do so when just talking about 'things'. Take some macroscopic piece (say, this computer for example) and start imagining its basic components. The computer is made of parts. Parts are made of scraps of metal and plastic. These scraps of metal and plastic are probably some composite of purer compounds, and so on until we get to atoms and then subatomic particles.

In this example, I'm more than content to say that subatomic particles can be a stopping point in this process, because at a certain point we're no longer even talking about mass but instead energy. I'm sure someone with knowledge of physics might be able to correct me here and just say it was infinite all along, because it was always energy. I would definitely be prepared to revise my worldview so radically if you could explain it to me in idiot's terms. But for now, I don't know how to make that case.

In any case, that same minimizing effect in a related scenario looks like it has the opposite effect. Say you had a circular piece of glass. You'd say every edge is completely rounded, but take a microscope up to it and examine the edges. If you get to a certain magnification, it will appear that you have a sharp corner. Round out that edge and then keep magnifying to see if you'd encounter another, smaller corner.

I'd wager you would find it, and rounding out this one won't prevent you from continuing to magnify the glass only to later find another tinier corner. The human eye isn't trained to reach a certain level of detail, and I can't say that the tools we create will enhance our abilities infinitely. Thus, I have to wonder if something can be perfectly round, or whether we'll continue to encounter that corner, no matter how far we keep going.

So there you have it: I disagree with myself. Maybe it's just a glitch in my thinking or I've been wired incorrectly, but I fully believe in both scenarios. The regress of particles seems finite (and seems necessarily finite for any Theory of Everything to work), yet the regress of geometric perfection seems infinite. I'm not one to say that geometry is an entirely theoretical knowledge, so the whole 'theoretical vs material subjects' argument goes out the window. Is there something I'm missing?