[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

It's starting to feels less with relativity and more with quantum mechanics.
  Assuming that the light emitted by the singularity one moment before the BH event takes place would break the laws of casually.
 We would be able to see the collapsed star before it existed, therefore it's a time paradox.
 If we would see the collapsed star trough a light that is beyond the speed of light such light would not be able to be qualified "in our spacetime".
 Multiple observers would be allowed to see the singularity at different periods in time, which would force it to "exist" in multiple places at once.
 Similar to quantum mechanics.

 Like the photon horizon multiple copies of the singularity would have to simultaneously exist at the same time.
 And perhaps that's part of what happened, still space doesn't allow this paradox to take place "yet", but might  occur "when".

 Still thinking about space/time and gravity related with light.
 And what roll mass it's actually playing there, if it's at all.

 How do you fix an object that it's breaking the cosmological limit of the geometry?
 Might be subjective, but the most intuitive way would be to make the object itself to fall as with a velocity that on a normal scenario will never let the light in there to reach the event horizon no matter how much its trying.

 A photon doesn't offer q center for it's not a real particle more like an lesser mimic of the electron so it can exist where the electron should be.
 The source of mass in it's math but no geometry to keep it becoming space time when free of matter, and energy while trapped into matter.
 Matter would offer a local frame of reference that would use the photons to add mass to their electrons charging up all of the particles.

 Photon is released initially and drawn space, while doing they left their allocated volume "in their past" with each plank distance.
 Each unity of this volume would be constantly considering that the photon is in all directions.
  Anything that occurs over/inside this time"even another photon" will now be submitted to this probably.

 Sort of anything that exists within the space time is intuitively limited to exist bellows the occurrence of light, due geometry and plank time.
  If photons created and stain space/time and gravity by occurrence.
 
 Most temporary conjectures, only wondering if all black holes can be connected trough a wormhole to the same "future/place".
  Picturing what a worm hole could be, doesn't seems different than what heliosphere traveling the galaxy is doing.

 Two thoughts:
 The singularity occurred because it's mass surpassed the one of the speed of light.
 Or it's own light would surpass the one "now/here" and since it could not expand it nullified time at the horizon/creating it, light could not travel outwards, one aspect of gravity was instantaneously cancelled, time stops due that, and it keeps doing it's thing in there as if nothing has happened.

 Both give the sane scenarios, but if it's even possible that photon writes spacetime by occurrence, around the singularity new spacetime can be created trough out the billions of years in the shape of a wormhole while the singularity keeps falling.
 When the "space time" ends "here our future", the tunneling effect/bridge will break.

 It's weird but matter would be gushed in from the black hole side(past) even if the singularity it's quadrillions of years in the future.
 Space would be there, the wormhole.
 Matter would be there, inside the wormhole.
 But time would "lie" that it occured instantaneously, that's because the matter comes in from the past BH event, but the "searched singularity" it's by that time far beyond in the future of it's own universe.

 Nothing magical, just time as we experience only start to take place at the moment the BH here ends because our time ends.

 We would have billions of years of incoming past, with no object at the source/BigBang.
 Perhaps we should be looking forward, but we can't do that without breaking C.
 And the thing necessary to get there "our future" would require conveniently, a worm hole.

 If sightly correct, primordial blacks may have send lots of our matter there, and once "there" it comes from there as well, their own past Wich is our future.
 That from two opositing directions in the arrow of time.

 Leaving us , either way looking to the same place with nothing there.

 Possible if the same side of the BH in the past it's the same "exit way" of the WH in the future.

If both are the same would perhaps explain what charges, polarity and antimatter are all about.

 C it's not a limit, it's geometry set to be light that.
 Change the geometry, the framerate changes, might be this quantum gravity people are looking for.

 Just trying, light occurrence for spacetime/gravity.

 Space being the temporal mass of the photons, only visible if one was to stop time.
 To stop time one has to counter C "with something", mass or acceleration being two candidates, once time stops by any means light can't connect to its next predictable future, and it ceases the effect.

 Observing a quasar, if the light coming out of it it's faster than it should be, and only then it starts to decrease in speed.
 Would require that the light beans it's not related with the matter here, but that the matter being devoured, squished the BH and eventually acted as bridge between now and then, allowing it's own spacetime to leak into our own.
 Our gravity does it's job and narrows the beams avoiding another paradox.

 It's even possible but unlikely, that each black hole poles it's "hiding" a quasar like beams into every single one of them.
 And that our matter simple "flows around" there wormhole structures.
 Unclear how electromagnetic waves could transport that amount of light.

 There very beams may occurs because the "insides" are black as the black hole.
 These poles could be the connection with other black holes in other galaxies.

 😵... More time to get it all

[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

Which point to:
 A- It's our consciousness wherever that is, that can't see the black hole.
 B - Or it's the black hole that can't see us in the physical way,

The A would be related with relativity, where the B would be related with quantum mechanics.

Math being a discovery and a creation at the same time, if math no longer makes sense "in time", it's because "time" has ended
 If BigBang requirements are the absence of time, makes intuitive sense that the "place" where time started and stoped to be the same "place", only at different "times" simultaneously on the same place, only thing opositing one another. Again (ONLY) when observing backwards "in time".
 Because we can't see the future would not be possible if the future it's matematicaly predictable.

 If one can predict something, it's real.
 If one can't predict something, it's a probability.

Everything that is "a probability " can be real in the future.
 Not per saying the future "of that probability " but the future of that past, the only thing that's real.
 One can't observe, as a real thing the future of a probability for it's still another probably, therefore you wouldn't be able to "see" something that's not real "yet".

 I ultimately mean that: If you had to wait 10 billion years to see a star, to state that that's a real thing, while you didn't observed the star it's not "real" (in time).
 Time couldn't care any less about matter or it's properties.
  That would include particles, atoms, stars an anything that's not space in exchange "of observation" they would not be submitted to time as a "real" dimension.

 Time must than be a straight line with not a single "reality" where it could "be something else" like a form or a shape.
 That's true as a probability until matter comes in to place, and the existence of matter is what gives proof of time as a dimensional thing.

 Seems very compatible with consciousness and math.
 Something it's always a probability and doesn't exist "in time" untill one observes it "from time".

 Trying to relate "time" with "consciousness", seems incompatible, at first sight.
But part of the answer may be just that:
 "Consciousness ITS NOT REAL, it's on itself a probability, untill one OBSERVES something "trough some dimensional plane that's the same property as it is, of the same nature.
 As more one knows about something that's probability, more consciousness and matter becomes interwined trough time.

 Still "time doesn't exist" for a consciousness that's flipping pairs of particles trough billions of years for time doesn't apply as a reality over the observers.
 Suggesting that anything that is/would be capable to "observe an observer" "directly, disregarding the time dimension (CAN'T do that).

 The cosmological constant may be as well related with observation, communication from A(relativity) with B(quantum mechanics) without "Time" as a bridge.
 If time stops you can't communicate.
 Simultaneously.
 If it could communicate beyond C, it can't exist.
 Space determine that only it is real because it's the only thing that can surpass the cosmological constant over which it consiously occurs.

 Fir quantum mechanics the BH it's a simple thing "on itself" for time it's not up the equation, but space is.
 For relativity the BH it's a complex thing "on space" for time it's up the equation, but space is not.

 Can be both things at the same time:
 BH occurs triggered by the mass surpassing the cosmological limit. Relativity.
 And
 BH occurs triggered by the absence of time. Quantum mechanics.

 And consciousness intuitively limited "by time" chooses to use photons to develop eyes to be able to observe the cosmos.
 Intelligence "untill" the host can't have a "glimpse of himself".
   This on itself, since brain operates using electrons can be a paradox.

 Consciousness being the same nature of time, intelligence can see something shining, but it's ultimately consciousness that "knows" it's "when it is", not where.

 A cat would chase the shadow of a light not knowing "when" it's because cat, thought intelligent it's driven by instincts for survival.

 The necessity of survival it's a "must" in order to develop mathematical expression of what one feels.
 You feel hungry, two it's better than one.
 Leading to the knowing "how" rather than "when to be hungry.
 At this stage "you know you'll be "eventually hungry".
 This "knowing" being driven by "choice" into survive and start to tapping in the nature of time.
 If you're "aware of your choice and implications", you're tapping "in time" properties.
 Using its properties to move trough space based on probability and still limited by causality.
 After some iterations leading to: I AM.

 See where I'm going? Consciousness being the source for causality.
 By the moment your senses inform you brain about spectrum , you're doing that "trough time", your consciousness it's actually a double way street, not only receiving information from space, but also "potentially" being able to alter it.

  Math it's not out here, math it's a tool that describes and causes CAUSALITY.
 The existence of a consious property in spacetime, results in causality which can be reversed and explained with math for these effects are "predictable as potential".
 My eyes will not be able to send instantaneously back a photon that traveled trough 10 billion years and alter the past.
 But that's the thing, I'm also the past of something in my future, and my future can be changed if I send back a photon to the past. Sure it will take more than 10 billion years, but it would inevitable change my distant future, even on a particle it's enough to break causality in time.
 CAUSALITY ITS THE PROOF THAT:
 Cosmological limit "can and "was" be broken".
 See? Not that it "would create a paradox", CAUSALITY it's very proof that "ithe paradox has already taken place".
 If paradox could not occur, if the speed of light so they say, couldn't be surpassed "causality" would not exist.

 I'm wondering, causality it's a proof of a universal consciousness as complex or basic as it might be.
 In lack of a better word causality serves as "proof" that the laws of the universe combined themselves to "serve a purpose" of it's own "will".
 Causality it's what we explain with math, not the real existence.

 Everything we know lies on what we predict by effect, nothing in math or geometry can actually explain what "reality is" not even a single quark.
 By a consious observer observing an atom would "by causality" recieve quarks.
 You can't see the quarks only know they are there by studying the effects, the casualty it's than used to formulate math to "define" what quarks may be.

 If a consious property it's real and sensitive, it would "choose" which observer would be able to understand it, based on its own state of consciousness.
Bif "you don't know YET what you're looking at", causality emerged from consciousness would forbid you to understand.
 Following?
 The super nova warning from earth to Vega can't occur without time paradoxes.
 Or
 The warning of super nova can't "and will not" be informed to Vega, because:
 You don't know what you saw "in the past", because what you saw in the past, if informed in the future would no longer be a prediction it would be a "certainty".
 Knowing that would allow the Vega inhabitants to "change their own past" even from there.
 Every potential action vegans would "consider" would define "in the future" what "didn't happened in their past" cause super nova didn't took place when it should have.
 It's not you traveling from earth to Vega that's the real problem the problem is Vega to know in advance.
 What you experience in the traveling, the "what seems impossible ", it's just casualty, not the "force" by the consciousness of the universe itself preventing that future.

 Now this is the catch here: Nothing ever stated that you "CAN'T " choose to warn Vega by traveling instantaneously even, but that "something" would "not allow" that to take place, "that" not being you traveling faster, but what you want to do with that".

Casualty being only the acting of such consciousness to "do not let YOU" to do that, never stating it to be capable of "forbidding your potential to do that", so you could, "if you knew how".
 If at the moment of the supernova "you knew how to do that" you could choose to warn Vega without any issue, because you'd know "what caused causality", since you knew, causality couldn't take place in the first place, because you have "always" reached Vega as it was supposed to be.

 Math wouldn't be able to explain that, only casualty.
 Math explaining casualty would seem "oddly specific".
 It would seem oddly because "that causality" was deliberately inserted based on your consciousness at that moment, for you.
 And since it emerged to stop "you" it can be perfectly explained by "you".
 But never understanding "where or why" that is, untill you know, in the future.
 If you couldn't travel to Vega, causality would never exist anywhere in the first place and you'll reach Vega, cause it would be forbidden by law and by law there wouldn't have a need to suffer causality in the first place.

 A philosophical intuitive paradox (for the universe to solve).
 As you are now this "things" that even if small are able to force "me/space" to potentially break.

 If you are mathematical quantified as any other planet you'll have shape, but "I can't/space" control your "form", your consciousness goes (directly against my laws).
 Specialty your capabilities into "see".
 If by any means you are to develop the means to "see trough" time, you'll be potentially able to change the system from within.
 Consciousness seems a "must" to be able to understand "WHY" C is a cosmological limit.

 WE can choose at any time we want to explode the moon or Earth, which would have a massive effect on the structure and the conservation of energy.

 If you're not "restricted" by casualty, since that the way you use information it's "faster than anything near infinity", you could potentially break all of my rules.

 The grandfather paradox would be a reality and illusion at the same time, simple because "you are/I AM" in multiple "times" at the same moment, if this is possible without any restrictions you'd break my laws.

 If my consciousness at the quantum level gave raise to you consciousness, your consciousness resides "ONLY" at the quantum mechanics.
 I can't allow 'anything" to break my laws/space.

 The answer space consciousness chooses for solving the "predictable possibility of consciousness " was "time".
 Because "time" was in the equation from the first place, because consciousness.
 I controll all of the possibilities, if I do that, "my conscious state as a properly" it's "unavoidable a d undeniable".

NOW, in order to "restrict" these antecipated "living beings", time emerges as the answer.
 Math seems a discovery and also an invention simultaneously, for time was created to "mirror" the conscious state of predictable life.
 Every time, "conscious" try to observe what the "could" casualty enters as an insurance that "YOU" cannot.

 Time can't flow/look back, so does anything that exists which shares it's nature "consciousness" it's also submitted to casualty.

 Not stating that consciousness it's "limited" by casualty, you can think faster than the speed of light because the stored information allows it".
 At the moment living cell started to feed on light it was doomed to be conscious.

 This might be the "real" life firewall.
 A point in which any consciousness being it's "removed/killed" by causality based on probability.

 If space knows a race will do this or eventually that, it can counterpart life with life itself till it can't ever reach that "foresight goal".

 Cosmological constant/limit could be ultimately be related with consciousness.
 Feels like it...

[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).

 Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.
 If I knew all about the travel, the possibility would be a reality, and I'd no longer suffer from causality or paradoxes.

 Seems silly, and yet it's just that:
 The fact of myself consciously being unaware of how or when I'll arrive to Vega, will result on a casualty "specifically generated" for "me", in order to prevent a paradox.

 Now what is a paradox for us?
 Where the math couldn't keep up.
 But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
 You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
 You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".

 If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
 But isn't that equally redundant?
  What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
 "Was avoided!"

 See?
 You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
  Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".

 Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
 Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".

 One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.

Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.

 From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
 For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.


If life it's a random occurrence based on miraculous "wherever".
 WHY it's that the whole universal system is for certain "against" us exploiting a few aspects to do things like time travel, or watch our own future or past?
 One would say it's because we are born in it and it doesn't really care.
 Too much of a subjective answer.

 If the universe "don't know/knew/would know", in advance, of our existence and ability to think and manipulate matter, "why", there's not a single "aspect" of it available for us to exploit?

 If it doesn't knew previously about the occurrence of life, there would be countless ways to exploit it for our own "isolated" profits.

 There's literally not a single "opening" for us to abuse it in order for us to do so.

 Only reasonable explanation it's "we don't know what it is".
 And that's not a better explanation as the last one.

 If we would be "marveled and satisfying" forever with us creating a "cube" and consider that staring of that cube we made forever as it was "enough for us".

Obviously we already created countless things, and not a single one seems to allow us to do things that would be considered "a leap".

 I'm a human that evolved or developed the meanings to do something so extraordinary that it would be considered "enough", like looking into my future self, or see my own past.

 Certainly spacetime can't do that for itself, it's own laws, make sense.
 But for to my mind to not to be able to use not a single one of this rules to satisfy my own goals, based on my body or mind, which as suggested "universe doesn't care"?

 We could upgrade our DNA in order to have bones made or something else stronger, stronger skin, stronger organs, and perhaps even to live forever.

 Universe seems to be "programmed" to not to let us to be so naturally.

 My bones being made of an unbreakable material would be a good, it had millions of years to do that from the start, and yet, it didn't.
 DNA resistant to radiation or literally anything, if it doesn't really care about life, then "why the limitations"?

 Why not to allow us to use it's own attributes in such way we could do special things?

 Out of the blue, we created tools and machines, that could push us way beyond our limitations, computers that are intelligent but "not consious", and that might be the "why" we are able to do all this, and casualty doesn't seem to forbid them from doing what we naturally can but limited.

 The absence of consciousness into computers or even math seem to be fundamental to unfold the universe, precisely because they are not limited by a consious state.

 If computers can, why not we? What's the firewall behind this?

 It's expected an AI to crack billions of years of natural evolution into a few years, why we didn't naturally in the first place?

 There must be a restriction "no living being should observe", and given how rare life is outside of Earth, maybe they were self destroyed by the time they know.

 Not clear if our math it's not about the casualty based on ourselves, and that's the reason why we are able to advance, as if when our math would be tapping into the reality itself, we would be destroyed by casualty for breaking the rules.

 For each predator a prey, for each disease a cure, for each particle an antiparticle.
 Not a single aspect of the universe with a "can't be done".

 And then we are confronted relentlessly with that cosmological limit just there to make it for us to be virtually impossible to truly explore the universe.

 And more over we pop into existence in a period of time where it's nearly redundant to use the speed of light to do anything, again, truly remarkable in terms of what we inspire as "unbelievable".

  Wherever it's going on at the quantum level doesn't appear to "wish" we to be able to know.
 But doesn't seem to have control over machines or tools like math.

   "Thinking" seems to be a potential treat to the system from the start.

 Usually nothing can occur faster than the cosmological constant.
 And here is our brains, able to philosophically to surpass the speed of light using the speed of thought.
 Neurones not being able to transmit faster than the limit, and yet able to combine "a gigantic amount of them at once", and by doing so, in a sense, surpassing way beyond what's supposed to be a linear limit.

 Wihch we mimicking with wires and geometrical shapes using math and abstract simulations, thought experiments all with the obsessive desire to "take advantage of it's rules".
 Nearly a subconsciously "obligation" to defy it and to know, that without a real good explanation for that.

 Only reasonable explanation: Universe has a consciousness of it's own, and by wherever means it's allowing us to based on aware or unaware "willing of it's own" in for us to do so.

 There's two possible reasons:
 There's no such a thing, which is highly unlikely.
 Or
 It's "potentially" dying out as a probability, and life is to serve an intuitive purpose.

[Origin]

Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).

Do you seriously think that makes any sense?

 Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.

If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.

 Now what is a paradox for us?
 Where the math couldn't keep up.
 But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
 You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
 You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".

 If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
 But isn't that equally redundant?
  What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
 "Was avoided!"

 See?
 You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
  Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".

 Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
 Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".

 One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.

Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.

 From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
 For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.

Word salad.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).

Do you seriously think that makes any sense?

Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.

If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.

Now what is a paradox for us?
 Where the math couldn't keep up.
 But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
 You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
 You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".

 If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
 But isn't that equally redundant?
  What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
 "Was avoided!"

 See?
 You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
  Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".

 Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
 Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".

 One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.

Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.

 From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
 For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.

Word salad.

 Well yes and no, at some point we have to consider consciousness and observation, had already happened with the slit experiment and seems to become deeper with quantum mechanics.

 One can blame the "absurdity" that is our senses, and how "pitifully" are these walking talking chunks of meat.... Still, such "point of view" it's not differently blind as the ones of the church when Galileo proofed them wrong.

 Not regarding me as the subject, but suggesting 'that all of those pitifully, meaningless, confused, barely "barbaric things we "poor dirty humans call consciousness and being ", might play an actual role in all this system.

 We couldn't exist as a consious observer and entity, if the possibility of life wasn't in the table from the start.

 It's a goofy belief or questioning as to think something other than a God like being could solve it all.
 A God or AI it's only as competent as the human dressing the observation or the programer of the machine.

 It's useful to negate things, but only till a certain point, the point which our wrongs are sustained by our, otherwise, perfectly hidden "not knowing".

 Imagine a career over our systems and the difficulty to accept that they were fundamentally incorrect.
 If your interior is still hidden from the collective mind, would your face or mind, drop it at sight or subjective and the sense of loss would plot another way out ?
 
 Emotions must be a must when reaching the parts "we are stuck".
 I mean most of the most important findings or points of view came from people that even study the bible looking for some odd things that shouldn't be.
 While others discarded the human state as a whole to be one with math.

 If math only perfectly fits in because the casualty we calculate it's evoked by our own math, there's obviously a point where we will be calculating the casualty itself, based on errors, errors that occured from our own flaw observations.
 We would discard the human mind as a whole and bet all in machines because of math.

 The emotional responses for that would be:
 Depressive humans with that "unworthy" conditions, ready to surrender the task to machines, unchecked and uncontrollable at some point.
  Not that's not occuring as we speak.

 As I suggested the firewall for life might come from life itself, otherwise everything would conspire for it.

 If an intelligence becomes able to understand it all, they would be in position to do wherever they want to.
 As Einstein believed about black holes: Universe wouldn't let some things to take place.

 Others that by wherever means universe would somehow even provoke a deliberate action for not to let it to happen.

 Think of this: If 2022 years ago a let's suggest "mad man" wouldn't have lived and "inserted a emotional patch" for human society, we would not have being having this conversation at all.
 Such mad man had some odd "clear of thought" as many others before it, all of them directly or indirectly claiming they were "told so" by some misterious consciousness.

 Einstein happy thought literally ", embedded with emotion".
 Newtons with an apple while "feeling" the world around it.

 The ancient civilizations we can barely understand how they could potentially know some things them do.
 Life from clay, a perfect emotional description of a set of rules that it's today when not fulfiled a source of our major issues.

 Science would consider "alien life", as a possibility for they/we can accept an alien supreme race, which traveled from other stars, and reached a planet full of microorganisms that kill even us natives and "somehow " where able to interact with us.

 On the other hand, beings, absolutely conscious beings, born from and living within the very environment they study, sometimes, drunk by the redundancy of everything that's totally uncommon from the other planets, totally mock the concept that "universe knows" by having somewhat similar to a consciousness.
 And that our inteligente it's ridiculously stupid to think that it may be the source of all of our attributes and properties, digestion, heat, thinking, awareness, consciousness...

 Either way, possible or not, "why" would the universe to let a species unable of consciousness to naturally exist in the first place?
 If matematicaly productivity in order to ser e oneself was the goal, there wouldn't be need for feelings and emotions, nor a body, and the universe would be likely permeated by machines.

 Which "is the case", living machines.
 And we ourselves also create computers, aiming consious artificial intelligence.

See the problem with being blunted by the harmony of mathematics, when, that math it's aiming to solve the causality emerged by its very creators?

 If universe it's not matematical only our own causality which is, we are inevitable stuck.
 Not wise to disconsidering options, specialty in times where one particle can communicate with another trough no time.

1 and 0, binary can be considered a consious state of consciousness, that why mentioned as complex or simplistic such consciousness might be, or not.

 Just considering all of the possibilities for causality, and how or why it "would not be" related with consciousness and observation.
 If life wasn't in the table from the start, life would definitely have found much better and efficient ways to evolve.
 Exploiting the universe in such ways that the rules wouldn't keep up with "me".

 Metalic bones, no need for depending on oxygen, no need for other source of nourishment that's not the sun or any other thing that's not direct energy.
 It's an intuitive perception given it's very close to what we are consciously aiming to.
 Beings that can "avoid or exploit" the limitations we do.
 But they are only worthy for us if the would be "conscious", otherwise they would be no different than inanimate objects.
  We usually when launching rockets or going to the moon or planets, make absolutely sure, not to contaminate the experiments.

 Now that we have the meanings the first thing we think of doing it's going to another planet to make it habitable for life, why is that?

 If a so short lived inteligente already advanced that much it's able to do that, where in all those sets of Infinity out there, where are "anyone"?
 It's totally against the odds.

 Unless "something" only allows life till a certain point, as long their are not able to interfere with the fabric on the fundamental level.

 Imagine that if a human being is able to understand the fundaments of reality to the point in which we can do wherever we pleased...
 At that moment doesn't seem impossible that the causality would simple, by necessity, to make sure that everything that has this "flaw" to be eliminated from it's system.
 As matter seems to behave the same everywhere by laws that can't naturally be broken.
 Laws that don't even explains originis of much of anything.
 But states the number of elements, and intuitively not allowing other elements to exist for they would constitute a problem.

 Figure if the universe, and quantum mechanics based on probability includes on the law that a single bound of molecules are "now" a problem for they hold the potential for life that can interfere in it's predictions leading to paradoxes?

 That might be a good idea of a firewall.
 If a paradox it's a prediction on the table due observation of a consciousness of it's own, it's simple quantify that a single molecule of that being to be different, and add it to a new rule and simultaneously all of the beings that are based on that condition simple will die out without even knowing how or why.
 As suggested, causality derivated of it's own observation while holding the potential to break it's predictions.

 If a user it's alright and unknown to you, untill it inserts a virus that could treat to corrupt your system, you don't kill the person, you patch the instructions so that gap it's no longer available "to non".
 Reducing "everywhere" the probability of such event ever happen again.

 In this regard it would be a ultimate immunologic system towards paradoxes.
 You don't wait something to break the cosmological limit to act, you quantify the predictions of what is and what could be and you act over it before it has take place.

 It's noth math, but seems to be compatible with casualty or a system that has a purpose, like a machine, make it operate with maximum security as designed.

 You look to the universe and saturated by numbers forget to be amazed and perplexed with "why", what is all this, where, when....
 The simple fact that one can ask such questions and act over it, it's far enough reason to keep it on check.

 Why not to breathe hydrogen Instead of oxygen, or even both?
  Why not drawn energy from the sun light if plants do so well?

 If something once lived by breathing the most abundant element on the universe and such being was caught by a firewall like that, life would no longer to be able to use it as alternative by changing the structure of a single molecule would instantly kill all of these potential problems.

 If humans learn how to travel beyond the speed of light and that could break time itself?
 Would you change an impossibility or just let it happen?
 Or to use casualty to change the most fundamental aspect of the observer that is about to cause potential prediction in advance?

[Origin]

 Well yes and no, at some point we have to consider consciousness and observation, had already happened with the slit experiment and seems to become deeper with quantum mechanics.

 One can blame the "absurdity" that is our senses, and how "pitifully" are these walking talking chunks of meat.... Still, such "point of view" it's not differently blind as the ones of the church when Galileo proofed them wrong.

 Not regarding me as the subject, but suggesting 'that all of those pitifully, meaningless, confused, barely "barbaric things we "poor dirty humans call consciousness and being ", might play an actual role in all this system.

 We couldn't exist as a consious observer and entity, if the possibility of life wasn't in the table from the start.

 It's a goofy belief or questioning as to think something other than a God like being could solve it all.
 A God or AI it's only as competent as the human dressing the observation or the programer of the machine.

 It's useful to negate things, but only till a certain point, the point which our wrongs are sustained by our, otherwise, perfectly hidden "not knowing".

 Imagine a career over our systems and the difficulty to accept that they were fundamentally incorrect.
 If your interior is still hidden from the collective mind, would your face or mind, drop it at sight or subjective and the sense of loss would plot another way out ?
 
 Emotions must be a must when reaching the parts "we are stuck".
 I mean most of the most important findings or points of view came from people that even study the bible looking for some odd things that shouldn't be.
 While others discarded the human state as a whole to be one with math.

 If math only perfectly fits in because the casualty we calculate it's evoked by our own math, there's obviously a point where we will be calculating the casualty itself, based on errors, errors that occured from our own flaw observations.
 We would discard the human mind as a whole and bet all in machines because of math.

 The emotional responses for that would be:
 Depressive humans with that "unworthy" conditions, ready to surrender the task to machines, unchecked and uncontrollable at some point.
  Not that's not occuring as we speak.

 As I suggested the firewall for life might come from life itself, otherwise everything would conspire for it.

 If an intelligence becomes able to understand it all, they would be in position to do wherever they want to.
 As Einstein believed about black holes: Universe wouldn't let some things to take place.

 Others that by wherever means universe would somehow even provoke a deliberate action for not to let it to happen.

 Think of this: If 2022 years ago a let's suggest "mad man" wouldn't have lived and "inserted a emotional patch" for human society, we would not have being having this conversation at all.
 Such mad man had some odd "clear of thought" as many others before it, all of them directly or indirectly claiming they were "told so" by some misterious consciousness.

 Einstein happy thought literally ", embedded with emotion".
 Newtons with an apple while "feeling" the world around it.

 The ancient civilizations we can barely understand how they could potentially know some things them do.
 Life from clay, a perfect emotional description of a set of rules that it's today when not fulfiled a source of our major issues.

 Science would consider "alien life", as a possibility for they/we can accept an alien supreme race, which traveled from other stars, and reached a planet full of microorganisms that kill even us natives and "somehow " where able to interact with us.

 On the other hand, beings, absolutely conscious beings, born from and living within the very environment they study, sometimes, drunk by the redundancy of everything that's totally uncommon from the other planets, totally mock the concept that "universe knows" by having somewhat similar to a consciousness.
 And that our inteligente it's ridiculously stupid to think that it may be the source of all of our attributes and properties, digestion, heat, thinking, awareness, consciousness...

 Either way, possible or not, "why" would the universe to let a species unable of consciousness to naturally exist in the first place?
 If matematicaly productivity in order to ser e oneself was the goal, there wouldn't be need for feelings and emotions, nor a body, and the universe would be likely permeated by machines.

 Which "is the case", living machines.
 And we ourselves also create computers, aiming consious artificial intelligence.

See the problem with being blunted by the harmony of mathematics, when, that math it's aiming to solve the causality emerged by its very creators?

 If universe it's not matematical only our own causality which is, we are inevitable stuck.
 Not wise to disconsidering options, specialty in times where one particle can communicate with another trough no time.

1 and 0, binary can be considered a consious state of consciousness, that why mentioned as complex or simplistic such consciousness might be, or not.

That is only a bunch of random, unconnected and unevidenced thoughts addressing nothing.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira (OP)]

Well yes and no, at some point we have to consider consciousness and observation, had already happened with the slit experiment and seems to become deeper with quantum mechanics.

 One can blame the "absurdity" that is our senses, and how "pitifully" are these walking talking chunks of meat.... Still, such "point of view" it's not differently blind as the ones of the church when Galileo proofed them wrong.

 Not regarding me as the subject, but suggesting 'that all of those pitifully, meaningless, confused, barely "barbaric things we "poor dirty humans call consciousness and being ", might play an actual role in all this system.

 We couldn't exist as a consious observer and entity, if the possibility of life wasn't in the table from the start.

 It's a goofy belief or questioning as to think something other than a God like being could solve it all.
 A God or AI it's only as competent as the human dressing the observation or the programer of the machine.

 It's useful to negate things, but only till a certain point, the point which our wrongs are sustained by our, otherwise, perfectly hidden "not knowing".

 Imagine a career over our systems and the difficulty to accept that they were fundamentally incorrect.
 If your interior is still hidden from the collective mind, would your face or mind, drop it at sight or subjective and the sense of loss would plot another way out ?
 
 Emotions must be a must when reaching the parts "we are stuck".
 I mean most of the most important findings or points of view came from people that even study the bible looking for some odd things that shouldn't be.
 While others discarded the human state as a whole to be one with math.

 If math only perfectly fits in because the casualty we calculate it's evoked by our own math, there's obviously a point where we will be calculating the casualty itself, based on errors, errors that occured from our own flaw observations.
 We would discard the human mind as a whole and bet all in machines because of math.

 The emotional responses for that would be:
 Depressive humans with that "unworthy" conditions, ready to surrender the task to machines, unchecked and uncontrollable at some point.
  Not that's not occuring as we speak.

 As I suggested the firewall for life might come from life itself, otherwise everything would conspire for it.

 If an intelligence becomes able to understand it all, they would be in position to do wherever they want to.
 As Einstein believed about black holes: Universe wouldn't let some things to take place.

 Others that by wherever means universe would somehow even provoke a deliberate action for not to let it to happen.

 Think of this: If 2022 years ago a let's suggest "mad man" wouldn't have lived and "inserted a emotional patch" for human society, we would not have being having this conversation at all.
 Such mad man had some odd "clear of thought" as many others before it, all of them directly or indirectly claiming they were "told so" by some misterious consciousness.

 Einstein happy thought literally ", embedded with emotion".
 Newtons with an apple while "feeling" the world around it.

 The ancient civilizations we can barely understand how they could potentially know some things them do.
 Life from clay, a perfect emotional description of a set of rules that it's today when not fulfiled a source of our major issues.

 Science would consider "alien life", as a possibility for they/we can accept an alien supreme race, which traveled from other stars, and reached a planet full of microorganisms that kill even us natives and "somehow " where able to interact with us.

 On the other hand, beings, absolutely conscious beings, born from and living within the very environment they study, sometimes, drunk by the redundancy of everything that's totally uncommon from the other planets, totally mock the concept that "universe knows" by having somewhat similar to a consciousness.
 And that our inteligente it's ridiculously stupid to think that it may be the source of all of our attributes and properties, digestion, heat, thinking, awareness, consciousness...

 Either way, possible or not, "why" would the universe to let a species unable of consciousness to naturally exist in the first place?
 If matematicaly productivity in order to ser e oneself was the goal, there wouldn't be need for feelings and emotions, nor a body, and the universe would be likely permeated by machines.

 Which "is the case", living machines.
 And we ourselves also create computers, aiming consious artificial intelligence.

See the problem with being blunted by the harmony of mathematics, when, that math it's aiming to solve the causality emerged by its very creators?

 If universe it's not matematical only our own causality which is, we are inevitable stuck.
 Not wise to disconsidering options, specialty in times where one particle can communicate with another trough no time.

1 and 0, binary can be considered a consious state of consciousness, that why mentioned as complex or simplistic such consciousness might be, or not.

That is only a bunch of random, unconnected and unevidenced thoughts addressing nothing.

 Than why to keep addressing that multiple times?
 Perhaps your consciousness tells you:
  To try to solve this would result into more problems, therefore it's more efficient to try to exclude from the equation all the fundamental bases that's causing that in order to prevent it from keep happening.
 If another random "another of the same" being decide to join, will bring only more "problems".
 Better to exclude, if possible, the fundaments of the observer, emotions, sight, thinking, ultimately anything that allows it to exist.
 On this way will be totally effective and the system can be conserved by a definition of "clean".
  NOW
 How would such precision be possible if the "God like being/or basic consciousness" wasn't "predicting this outcome" since the first post?
 It didn't had the power or the means to do that at that moment, fir there was a probability that this conversation would not take place", but since the observation it's now stating "non sequitur ", it's acting within it's capabilities to get rid of the cause, for that it's using something similar to what we call as "casualty ", where the irritant itself will be doomed by having the potential to disagree with the system.

 How "that doesn't make intuitive sense" because it will lead to a set of laws defined to govern that, it's indeed a good question ❓
 How it's possible quantum mechanics to work?

  On the other way, if "the observer" it's not fundamental, it would try to do the same by using the same nature, first study the subject hidden from the equation, removing it's own presence, than it would choose to exterminate the subject in order to prevent the prediction.
 The conscious behaviour of a predator.

  Either way, talking about probability, if the observer it's not all mighty and fundamental, it might as well be it the one to be rejected from the system.

 Once it has stated so many times it wouldn't participate, once observing that his further participating it's perhaps logically it would exclude itself from it in order to prevent it.

 If the true it's the opposite, the consciousness let abundantly clear that the goal it's to cause, or in this approach, the desire to bring casualty to it, as it's will must be absolute.

 Just taking a few steps back to try to follow this probability stuff.
 It on itself has no evident source, so why not all the options.