Not sure if this is supposed to be taken literally or in a more poetic sense. It's nice poetry, but honestly I don't think this has much scientific truth value. It is not my intent to offend you by tearing this apart and being critical but you asked my opinion so here it is.
First you write,
The only difference between that and the other 2 sections is the fact it's absent from your mind.
No, what makes it plausible that the particle takes all possible routs has nothing to do with you or your mind or your thoughts about the particle or whether you are watching it. It is because you are not measuring it. It's not that complicated; if you measure the position of the particle during the journey, then the position is unambiguously determined. It's not possible for it to be in any other location. Measuring is not a human activity. It is done by an instrument in a lab such as a magnet. Again, I apologize if you were just being poetic but I want to look at your essay with scientific accuracy to dispel misconceptions.
Next, you write
Math is nothing but a representation of the physical, the link between [GR and QM] must be non physical. The only non physical thing I can think of is consciousness.
To put it simply, the mathematical incompatibility of QM and GR arises because they use very different types of mathematics to describe the action of a force. It's not that the physical concepts of gravity, and the other forces are fundamentally irreconcilable, it's that that the differential geometry of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold works very well for describing gravity, not the other forces. There are other models such as String Theory which unify the four forces under the same mathematical framework. Of course String Theory is is not tested but none the less, it shows that unification is mathematically possible. Even if for some reason it wasn't, to assert that consciousness plays any role in "linking" gravity and the other forces (What does that even mean?), is far from a reasonable assumption. What does consciousness have to do with the fundamental forces? What if consciousness never evolved? Better yet, what "linked" GR and QM before consciousness evolved? Unless you're proposing that consciousness is eternal and born from Hawking radiation and black holes. Now that would just be ridiculous.
I can't prove this, but I strongly suspect that we live in a completely physical world, governed by natural processes. As such, even if there are phenomena we don't fully understand (i.e. consciousness), it is reasonable to operate under the assumption that these phenomena arise from natural processes, and can be understood from careful scientific investigation, even if they aren't explained by current scientific theories.
Moving on,
Black holes are creation not destruction.
What do you mean by this? I can't think of anything more destructive than a black hole.
Both particles are quantumly entangled
No. I don't know too much about Hawking radiation but I don't think this is true. Even if particle-antiparticle pairs are entangled at the moment of creation, once either one interacts with anything, the pair will become decoherent/disentangled. So this refutes the next couple sentences about everything outside being connected to everything inside a black hole.
Before moving on I'd like to point out that GR doesn't even work at the singularity of a black hole. By definition, the singularity means the mathematics breaks down. GR doesn't properly describe the center of a black hole. You write,
The singularity of a black hole is a point of infinite density so all its contents are interacting with everything else simultaneously. Quantum mechanics says anything that can happen will happen given infinite time.
No. Everything is not interacting with everything else. Even if we still try to use GR to describe what's happening at the singularity it doesn't even lead to your conclusion. At the center of a black hole, there is no separation between events in spacetime. This means there can not be any interactions taking place. The arrow of time only flows toward the center, but it does not exist at the center. This is what it means to be a singularity. Anything that can happen will, but nothing can.
Now I'm really not sure how any of this relates back to the double slit experiment. Are you assuming that all particles have an entangled anti-particle pair at the center of a black hole? Surely even if all you said was valid, not all particles are created from Hawking radiation.
To summarize, let me distill your argument to see if I understand. (My comments in parentheses)
-Physics uses math. (yep)
-Math can't describe both GR and QM (not correct).
-Consciousness is unphysical. (probably not)
-Therefore, consciousness links GR and QM. (wildly illogical conclusion)
-Black holes are described by GR. (yep)
-Black holes have a singularity. (yep, but it's different than you think)
-Spacetime is small near the singularity. (I added this one)
-QM describes small things. (yep)
-Therefore, black hole singularities link GR and QM. (better wording needed. I'd say GR and QM are both important inside black holes.)
-Therefore, consciousness is connected to black hole singularities. (waky wavy inflatable arm flailing tube man conclusion)
-Hawking radiation exists. (yeah probably)
-One part falls into the singularity, the other escapes outside. (that's what the smart dead guy tells me)
-The particles are entangled (maybe but not for long)
-Anything that can happen will. (key word: can)
-Time is infinite at the singularity. (misleading wording)
-Therefore everything is happening at the singularity. (No)
-Therefore god. (I'd actually like this definition of god if all your antecedents were valid)
I've been a bit playful and a bit serious with some of my comments but I hope I may have cleared up some misconceptions. I may come off like I'm trying to be a know-it-all but I don't. I study physics and astronomy so I know more about these topics than the average person but there is so so much that I (and everyone else) do not understand. If something I said was incorrect or if I misunderstood/misinterpreted something you wrote, let me know. Also regardless of whether what you wrote is true or not. I liked reading it. It's an interesting concept. I just don't think it's how our universe works.