Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

Consider: Ockham himself believed that "not multiplying entities beyond necessity" was an argument for the existence of God and an argument against the existence of everything else. That is, once you had an omnipotent god, everything else was just a product of that god's imagination. This idea wasn't necessarily original to Ockham, but he was one of it's more notable proponents.

Furthermore, "simplicity" is an extremely wobbly concept. To a circularist, elliptical orbits are horribly complex, as they have to be approximated by an infinite series of epicycles. Acknowledge ellipses as primary and they become simple: adding just one parameter over circles. There are of course fairly objective measures of complexity (Shannon entropy and Kolmogorov complexity) but neither of them apply very nicely to the kind of conceptual arguments where Ockham's razor is typically introduce.

Finally, we know that there is exactly one consistent way to update our beliefs in the face of new evidence: Bayes' rule. Since it is very simple, we don't really need to invoke any additional heuristics like Ockham's razor. And we find, in fact, that in the few cases where Ockham's razor makes sense it is nothing but a consequence of Bayes' rule, and can be expressed as follows:

In cases where two causes would give rise to the same evidence with roughly equal probability, and one cause has a much higher prior plausibility, the presence of the evidence means that cause is the more likely of the two.

That is, "When you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras" is a good idea in most cases because the prior plausibility of "There are horses around" is a whole lot higher in most cases than that of "There are zebras around". The presence of hoofbeats raises the plausibility of both propositions by exactly the same amount, but the ratio between them remains the same, so the evidence is most likely evidence of horses, not zebras.

it would take a year to get to the speed of light at 1g (if my equation was right.) Then you can't speed up anymore.

I don't think this really makes sense, because "normal space" is not a well-defined term.

What our current relativistic theories say is that spacetime contains a causal structure marked out by light cones, and nothing can move outside the light cones. In certain spacetimes (like the one that describes our expanding universe), it is possible to assign coordinates to events so that it looks like objects are moving apart "faster than light", but when you look at the light cones in those same coordinates, you can confirm that the objects are still moving inside the light cones.

> new space in between these points is being created

This isn't really part of the physics of the expanding universe; it's an interpretation that some people put on it. There's nothing in the actual math that corresponds to "new space being created".

> space can "flow" faster than the speed of light on the far side of event horizons

This isn't really part of the physics either; it's an interpretation (part of what's often called the "river model" of black holes) that can help with visualization, but again there's nothing in the actual math that corresponds to "space flowing faster than light".

> ways of doing these manipulations may well exist

According to our current theories, any such manipulations would require what is called "exotic matter". There are good physical reasons to think that it is not possible to create exotic matter, especially in the quantities we would need to "hack spacetime" (nice phrase!) on the scales we would want to do it. Given that, I don't think it's fair to say that "FTL is most likely possible in theory"; I would say it's most likely not possible on our best current theories.