We act on incomplete knowledge, and in doing so, create limits.
Our perception needs limits in order for us to operate.
Common values reinforce common values.
An infinite number of people could attempt to do something outside of their scope, but if they aren't able to succeed, or they aren't willing to make certain sacrifices, how have they got further than the first to do so? Their experiences are not additive, since they are not complete.
Words can convey a mixture of values, but they are ineffective at convey the strength or ratio of those values. Even if an idea is conveyed with all the right elements, it is still conveyed out of proportion; emotions effect how an idea is transmitted and also how it is received.
A brain can be fast, but if it is a poor communicator or it is subject to a poor interpreter, its resources are worthless. It makes sense that if we need artificial limits to live that sometime we relive certain thoughts rather than follow them further.
It makes sense that the stranger possibilities should be biased against generally in order to avoid an overload of cognitive dissonance.
If one were to avoid an overload, probably not all at once. To make the mind more prepared, one could approach the problem by reducing weight on the core gradually.