Classically, there's no particular reason that a possible configuration of the things has to be reachable from the current configuration of things, even in an infinite universe.
(Extremely improbable quantum tunneling would allow it though.)
But there is no reason at all to think the universe is infinite. Plenty of evidence it isn't. The idea it is is entirely from either the religious or secular versions of "Dude, I'm going to blow your mind"
There's little good reason to think it is or isn't (there is not plenty of evidence to think it isn't). There is plenty of good reason not to claim you know one way or the other.
I certainly didn't claim to know. But at this point in history, if you want to have the highest chance of making the right guess: I would strongly suggest you go with the scientific consensus that the universe began with a Big Bang and is therefore not infinite, and the consensus of physicists that the observable evidence suggests the universe is not infinite for other reasons as well.
I kinda have to assume you didn't connect the facts that an infinite universe rejects the Big Bang model? Because there is definitely plenty of evidence for that model.
Yes, there are epistemic limits to science, that does not mean it's not evidence. And an infinite anything is an extraordinary claim. It's practically the most extraordinary claim.
Fair enough, with the right distinction between universe and observable universe they are certainly compatible.
Any discussion of the characteristics of the universe outside the observable universe runs into some interesting epistemic problems around what constitutes evidence. Maybe it's turtles all the way down, or teapots. Good luck trying to estimate the prior probability of an infinite number of possibilities with an ape brain that evolved to hunt and gather on the Savannah.
I find a lot of pop science at the fringes of our knowledge (QM and astrophysics) relies a lot on infinities to justify cool stoner ideas that are unfalsifiable and chosen entirely based on human biases of what would be "awesome". I do have a very strong bias against these because of this obvious element of wishful thinking. The infinite-alternate-realities-of-the-gaps argument is just the god-of-the-gaps argument for the "I fucking love science" crowd.
Not necessarily if there is no harm from the association.
NASA encourages people to do independent research. If they
NASA gave them small grant and facilities in JCS, they show their support even if they don't take them seriously. That's part of scientific openness.
It really comes down to what the management at NASA JSC wants to do about it. As a non-research oriented center, they don't seem to care very much. At the research centers, I suspect it would be a different story.
