Yeah, it's possible to modify physical theory in a way that is compatible with our current bounded observations, that allows FTL with higher energies then ever controlled or perhaps ever practical to create.

One of SH's hobbyhorses is that the Universe has no obligation to conform to the most elegant symmetrical theory. (See C/P/T symmetries.)

She's not saying that it should be possible, only that we shouldn't automatically rule it out based on a theory that we already know to be incomplete

it is reasonable to "rule out" (read: effectively treat as not true, see Russel's Teapot) any theory which lacks sufficient evidence to treat it with any greater weight

I agree with you.

I enjoyed her talk. She pointed out the subtle flaws in the commonly held view that the speed of light is an absolute limit.

At no point does she say this means it is not a limit, only that this conclusion is not fully warranted from the theory we have now, which we also know to be incomplete.

That’s vacuously true, though. Nothing is strictly impossible, from a Bayesian perspective.

Some of the best science ever done is through that lens though. Cantor's work on cardinality, relativity, bioelectric networks (more recently). Sometimes it's important to revisit the foundational priors your structures are relying on and make sure they're as sturdy as you remember/your peers are telling you.

That isn't to say that Hossenfelder's bold prediction is necessarily true. But that by double-checking the rudiments themselves, we might find _better_ rudiments.

Consider the axiom of choice. We know it can't be constructed from ZF alone, and so we just throw it in sometimes. But - ZF's axioms are constructed for practical purposes as well. While they are taken as basic principles, they have been carefully studied and analyzed to avoid inconsistencies and paradoxes. The axioms provide a stable foundation for set theory that has effectively served as the groundwork for modern mathematics. But that is a construct made from necessity for rigor - not necessity for the "true" model.

That last bit about "true" models delves into philosophy territory. But the point isn't that Hossenfelder is right or wrong. It's that studying these rudiments and finding holes in them can sometimes be the correct place to go looking for new theory.

And also, I think it's abundantly clear from her tone and choice of words that her bold "prediction" is designed to get you thinking about this stuff in that frame of mind and not something she would actually bet millions on. If I had to guess, she probably feels more akin to Knuth does on P vs NP - that if P does equal NP, it will still have no bearing in practice for other quite interesting reasons.