I should have also been a little more specific with the "the math doesn't prove or disprove it" as in, "the math as it currently stands does not prove or dispro

I should have also been a little more specific with the "the math doesn't prove or disprove it" as in, "the math as it currently stands does not prove or disprove it." Which is true of a lot of theories in physics. There is a possibility and the math and experimentation isn't there yet to decide if the theory is correct or not. Not that the math will never come, but the equations are not there today. To answer the question, within reasonable limits, yes. If it is a thought experiment to provoke looking at a problem a different way, it could be useful. While Fred Hoyle's steady state theory didn't hold much water, using it as a basis to analyze certain problems, he was able to held figure out Nucleosynthesis. The problem is knowing the reasonable limits. Like, don't let it consume your entire life's work and use it as a means to analyze a problem from a different angle. In context of Roger Penrose, it may be illuminating. Right now, I imagine most are trying to solve the problem starting at the big bang and working backwards. Penrose is essentially trying to pick some arbitrary potential solution and asking, "if this is true, what else must be true" and seeing if he can work his way forward to the Big Bang or not.