Could does not imply will.
Basically, we are trying to define an unknown by observing its effects and assuming our math is correct. A similar thing is happening with artificial intelligence, but that's another story.
I haven't delved into black holes and other modern theories, but the number of theories in circulation indicates that the end of these questions will only come once we are able to make actual measurements from within or at least around these mysterious celestial objects, be it black holes, wormholes, or others that have yet to come (the idea of yet more other objects/entities hidden to us at the moment should not be foreign to us).
On the subject of our universe's history: due to some similarities in areas of the universe that indicate their origin in the same area and their distance (which is greater what distance light could have traveled during the same time period) has led to the theory that, at least sometime during that time period, the speed of light was not the highest speed attainable by matter. Another possibility would be of some "shortcuts", possibly through real dimensions through which passage is conditioned... So, so many theoretical explanations that cover a few aspects but fall on other simultaneously applicable aspects.
Anyway, of interest is the theoretical possibility that the speed of light is not the absolute maximum. Since we can't even comprehend what happens past the speed of light, we might not even be able to detect entities found in the state of above light speed manifestation.
Are we so sure that the limits of nature we claim to know are constants? We have only been able to define and watch some of these for no more than a few hundred years. In astronomical terms, our observation of constants could be only an infinitesimal area on the graph of their evolution (those who have studied calculus should understand)
I have lost track... I might return later.