No need for funky stuff, just do the classic (lol) Young's slits experiment which should be more than enough oddness for anyone.

I was shown it at school, using microscope glass slides that we waved over a Bunsen burner running cold, to coat with soot. We then carefully etched parallel lines with a compass by hand. Our (~17 y/o) efforts were a bit random but we did get some smudgy banding results on the screen.

But then you "fill up all the photon slots" too (not literally because they are not fermions, but they do spontaneously convert back into things like electrons at that density) and you can work around the Pauli exclusion principle by stacking your electrons at higher and higher energy levels.

Pauli exclusion isn't an impenetrable force field - as you say, it's just often more favourable to do something else than to work around it. Consider an iron atom with however many electrons though - all those orbitals except the inner one are electrons working around Pauli.

I'm not a physicist either.

Pauli exclusion is a QM thing. Black holes are a GR thing. Famously, we don’t know how to mix the two.

Pauli Exclusion is just another “force” that can be overridden. Nature isn’t a list of rules

If outside observers could watch the astronaut clearly, the astronaut would look like they're slowing down to a stop at the event horizon. The astronaut would not see themselves freezing in time, but they would see everything outside of the black hole speed up.

You could travel arbitrarily far into the future by getting close to a black hole's event horizon for a while without crossing it and then leaving, assuming you had the energy for it and you didn't get obliterated by all the mass and energy falling into the black hole in that timeframe.

Time acceleration is dependent on the gravitational flux.

All objects within a given radius of the black hole (possibly modulo spin) would experience the same time dilation. Remote objects in the universe would not experience the dilation.

From the perspective of the astronaut falling toward the singularity, the rest of the Universe would age at an ever-increasing rate.

From the perspective of a remote observer, the astronaut falling toward the singularity would be experiencing time at an ever-decreasing rate.

The notion of relativity is that time-perception is relative, and dependent on acceleration, whether from motion (as on a spaceship) or from gravitational acceleration (as near a black hole). Objects in orbit around Earth, further from Earth's centre, and hence subject to reduced gravitational acceleration, age more quickly than objects on Earth's surface. This is actually measurable using atomic clocks, though the effect is quite small. It is sufficient that GPS satellites require time correction.

My rather limited understanding is that. first there is a lot going on and due to the forces and gravitational gradients involved, matter itself probably would not survive the journey that close to the horizon. But ignoring that, When in compressed time, from the point of view of someone freefalling, timewise everything is normal, the rest of the universe has accelerated and in the case of a black hole has just aged out and died but you are fine. from the external point of view they are taking forever to get there.

Where my imagination fails(above my pay grade) is in the face of infinity, what are the implications of infinite time compression?(everything happens at once?)

Wouldn't it be both? Electrons occupy probability clouds, but the overall probabilities of things happening are summed over the whole cloud as if, at each point, the electron was a point particle at that point?

QM slanting anit-realist is because some prominent physicists like Neils Bohr gave the math that interpretation, and they were more persuasive than the realists like Einstein, Schrodinger, Everett.

The agnostic view is it's just a mathematical model that makes accurate probabilistic predictions when measurements are made, which says nothing about what's really going on.

Of course treating particles as points is also mathematical.

Sure the position of an electron is not definite, but neither is that of a buckyball, but a buckyball has a shape we can describe, an internal structure we regard as extended over space, in a way that is separate from the indeterminacy of its center of mass position. This is unlike an electron, for which, if we set aside the uncertainty as to its center of mass, my understanding is that the only internal degrees of freedom it has left (in the Standard Model) are its spin and whether it is left or right handed, with no other structure to it.

It is in this sense that, AIUI, electrons are modeled as point particles.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that if we zoom in enough, probing at higher and higher energy scales, that it can’t turn out to have some non-zero fundamental size outside of just uncertainty in its center of mass position. I think string theory would say that at the string scale it would be a string.

But, AIUI, no experiment has shown it to have the kind of extent that would make it be called not a point particle (an extent in a sense beyond just uncertainty in COM position)