PDA

View Full Version : problems with the matrix.


medea
May 19, 2003, 10:12 PM
since everyone seems to be talking about why the love this movie, i'll post some reasons I don't.
1.why would an injury in the VR world carry over into the "real" world, there is no computer physically breaking your leg there.....
2.Why does everyone look the same inside and out of the matrix?
3.Humans are the ones that destroyed the earth trying to wipe out the machines, yet the machines while harvesting your energy are still letting you live in paradise, what happens if you were to free everyone? what kind of earth would they all be living on then. Plus the whole crew advocates the killing of innocent humans who are unaware of "the martix."
4.Back to the harvesting energy thing, if the whole point of using the humans is as a power source like batteries, why would they use all that power by running a huge reality sim when they need ENERGY. seems like a waste to me.
5.in the first one, one of the characters, mouse I belive, realises that computers can not truly have a sense of taste and therefore the "chicken" in the matrix is probabaly not close to real chicken etc. but why would it stop there, surely the same would go for colors, hearing and smells. and you can go much further into that.
6.deja vu as neo apparently experienced was not deja vu, deja vu is a feeling not and actual experience, and there is no reason a change in the vr enviroment should result in things repeating themselves.
7.when people exit the matrix they disapperar in the movie, this is not plausible, the disapperance of an object would cause a tear in the fabric of vr, and as far as the vr world is concerned, the body is just another physical object so why would it vanish.
8. why can you break the rules of the matrix just by willing it, in client-server system isn't security done on the server side, where actions attempted by clients are carefully checked against their list of allowable actions. Neo should never be allowed to fly in the matrix etc...

you can go on and on, the matrix is highly flawed and brings desensitised violence to a whole new level, why waste your time.
oh cause the fight scense are "cool" and it brings philosopical ideas to a new audience.....

job
May 19, 2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by medea
1.why would an injury in the VR world carry over into the "real" world, there is no computer physically breaking your leg there.....

I'm only going to respond to this once since it's the easiest. ;)

Like Morpheus said in the first film, your mind makes it real. The Matrix is so real to the human mind that it perceives everything that happens to be a real occurance. Thus, as far fetched as it may seem, the mind will re-create the physical damage suffered in the Matrix. A perfect example of this is when Neo tasted blood after his first real experience in the Matrix.

While I agree that many of the points you brought up are indeed valid, I think the original movie did something to us that no movie had for a very long time. It made us think. It made us look at a steak and wonder if that steak is really there. I know some people who briefly questioned their own conception of reality. How are we to know, other than by the impulses received from our sensory organs, what "reality" actually is? I think these concepts helped the first movie appeal to so many people, simply because it was that different.

Wardofsky
May 19, 2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by job
I'm only going to respond to this once since it's the easiest. ;)

Like Morpheus said in the first film, your mind makes it real. The Matrix is so real to the human mind that it perceives everything that happens to be a real occurance. Thus, as far fetched as it may seem, the mind will re-create the physical damage suffered in the Matrix. A perfect example of this is when Neo tasted blood after his first real experience in the Matrix.

While I agree that many of the points you brought up are indeed valid, I think the original movie did something to us that no movie had for a very long time. It made us think. It made us look at a steak and wonder if that steak is really there. I know some people who briefly questioned their own conception of reality. How are we to know, other than by the impulses received from our sensory organs, what "reality" actually is? I think these concepts helped the first movie appeal to so many people, simply because it was that different.

The Matrix was, although it has been changed, writen a while ago by an author who never wuite finished it.

The main plot is that machines or other beings are making us believe we are in a real world to live off our energy/thoughts etc.

Just thought ya'll like to know.

The Matrix (Movie) is once again only a movie and mistakes can arise if things don't make sense.

strider42
May 19, 2003, 10:33 PM
seriously, you are way overthinking it. its a movie. There are plot holes big enough to drive semi's through. Don't worry about it.

But I'll answer what I can based on the movies:

1) the mind is powerful enough to make it real. Kind of like the idea if you die in a dream you die in real life. Whatever, don't worry about it, its a movie.

2) They explain this in the first one, in fact, people look very different in the matric than they do outside it (neo is bald in the first one, but in the matrix he has hair). its called residual self image. I know, why do other people see you that way. its a movie. get over it.

3)They'd be living in a **** hole, but they'd be free. They don't advocate killing innocents, but know that in some cases they have to because the innocents will hamper them and can become agents. its a movie.

4) When you have a car, you use the battery to start the motor running. You can't make energy without using energy. I mean, thats pretty obvious. Youd on't think powerplants magically appear do you. Of course, we all know humans wouldn't create that much energy to make it worthwhile. Get over it, its a movie.

5) I think mouse was just making a point. I think its pretty readily implied that the machines coudln't truly get anything perfect. Thats why he brought it up. Is he supposed to espouse for three hours about it. its a movie.

6) how do you know how the matrix works. Why wouldn't changing something create a glitch that is felt as deja vu. Its a fictional environment, it can do whatever they want it to do to serve the plot. its a movie.

7) see number 6. you don't know how a fictional computer system works, so why bother trying to explain it in terms of reality. its a movie.

8) see the last two answers. remember, its a movie.

Did I mention is a movie. Why analyse it so much and try to find plot holes. I mean, you can find holes within 15 seconds of each movie. Know what, I can find holes in any movie pretty easily. The matrix and its sequels aren't going to be works on par to shakespeare, they are just fun. its just a movie. It happened to be fairly entertaining. you ask why people should waste their time with it, I ask why waste your time trying to poo poo what others find entertaining.

MrMacMan
May 19, 2003, 10:48 PM
The whole basis is that the matrix can be changed by, as you said 'client, server'.

Neo can break (see hack) the matrix's code so he can do things that others can't (see fly...kinda).

5) How can it taste like that? Lets see they didn't kill all of human kind (as you see in the animatrix) they 'saved' them, maybe the robots guessed, but maybe they took there time and got a chicken and decoded its cells and genes, I dunno.

7) VR works around the basis that it, itself is virtual. Grasp this concept, when I go into VR, play a game and leave, am I ripping the VR's code to shred? No, it was programed to let me go and come.

3) yes, a paradise, would you prefer a bad high or a good high? I would hope a good one, same thing. They simulate this world because if you had nothing to live for, you would just kill yourself and the machines couldn't get much use out of you could they?
no, not really.

Wardofsky
May 20, 2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by strider42
seriously, you are way overthinking it. its a movie. There are plot holes big enough to drive semi's through. Don't worry about it.

But I'll answer what I can based on the movies:

1) the mind is powerful enough to make it real. Kind of like the idea if you die in a dream you die in real life. Whatever, don't worry about it, its a movie.

2) They explain this in the first one, in fact, people look very different in the matric than they do outside it (neo is bald in the first one, but in the matrix he has hair). its called residual self image. I know, why do other people see you that way. its a movie. get over it.

3)They'd be living in a **** hole, but they'd be free. They don't advocate killing innocents, but know that in some cases they have to because the innocents will hamper them and can become agents. its a movie.

4) When you have a car, you use the battery to start the motor running. You can't make energy without using energy. I mean, thats pretty obvious. Youd on't think powerplants magically appear do you. Of course, we all know humans wouldn't create that much energy to make it worthwhile. Get over it, its a movie.

5) I think mouse was just making a point. I think its pretty readily implied that the machines coudln't truly get anything perfect. Thats why he brought it up. Is he supposed to espouse for three hours about it. its a movie.

6) how do you know how the matrix works. Why wouldn't changing something create a glitch that is felt as deja vu. Its a fictional environment, it can do whatever they want it to do to serve the plot. its a movie.

7) see number 6. you don't know how a fictional computer system works, so why bother trying to explain it in terms of reality. its a movie.

8) see the last two answers. remember, its a movie.

Did I mention is a movie. Why analyse it so much and try to find plot holes. I mean, you can find holes within 15 seconds of each movie. Know what, I can find holes in any movie pretty easily. The matrix and its sequels aren't going to be works on par to shakespeare, they are just fun. its just a movie. It happened to be fairly entertaining. you ask why people should waste their time with it, I ask why waste your time trying to poo poo what others find entertaining.

Are you suggesting the the Matrix is a movie?

GeneR
May 20, 2003, 02:53 AM
I think Medea makes some great points. A lot of the problems in the matrix such as the idea of expending so much energy to create a matrix from people's bodies make as much sense as what you find in Star Wars or any other Sci Fi show: hearing laser blasts and explosions in the vacuum of outerspace? Say it ain't so! :D

However, I think if it really was more than a movie which is simply asking us to suspend our disbelief for a couple of hours, I think it may be worth a rant. As is, I don't know if Medea really deserves to waste his energy on a movie like this. At the end of the day, it's still just a movie. It's only entertainment.

I think our culture makes movies into social, political and spiritual statements too often because it is a powerful medium. However, at the end of the day, isn't is simply, well, entertainment?

:D

Bengt77
May 20, 2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by GeneR
I think our culture makes movies into social, political and spiritual statements too often because it is a powerful medium. However, at the end of the day, isn't is simply, well, entertainment?

Amen to that!

;)

pseudobrit
May 20, 2003, 06:22 AM
1. Explained in the first one; doesn't actually break your leg, but can cause you to spit blood or die.
2. Explained in the first. They don't; they lose the terminals on their bodies/heads and their hair changes.
3. They are not free. The humans who are will have to sacrifice those who are not to free humanity.
4. You have to make your energy source complacent, reliable and controllable. We couldn't have nuclear power plants sporadically melting down not, could we? Why would the machines let their power source be conscious of their captivity? So they could revolt?
5. Yeah. It's a mindf***. How do you know what human flesh tastes like if you've never had it? You could have eaten it last time you went to a restaurant and just thought your pork chops tasted a little funny.
6. A glitch in the system; something changes, things jump a little.
7. Their consciousness is downloaded out of the Matrix and their bodies disappear because they are no longer there. What's never shown is how one enters the Matrix.
8. They're not breaking the rules of the system, they're breaking the rules in the program.

If you have this much trouble accepting simple plot points that were explained well enough for most people in the first Matrix, how the hell do you expect to understand the deeper, more complex ideas of the second and third ones?

iMook
May 20, 2003, 03:34 PM
medea:

1. There is a real basis for this mind-over-matter thing, though I've heard of no cases where actual physical injury had resulted. But, there have been documented cases of people going blind out of the blue one morning, they go to the doctor, the doctor finds their eyes perfectly normal, and everyone's mystified until a doctor tells them that he/she's gonna give the blind guy an injection which will cure his blindness. The blind guy is given a saline solution injection, and his blindness disappears. It's all in the mind.
If you want a humorous take on this, go to Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-05-12&res=l) then read user e-mail (http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2003-05-12) (scroll down "This Is What I Mean")

2. The "residual self-image" part is BS, IMHO. How can your image be "residual" (left over from something) if you've never seen it before? Your image in the Matrix could just be a projcetion of your actual image in the pod (w/ body hair) that the bots take every once in a while.

3. The "give humans good world to be in" thing is partially addressed in both movies. The first Matrix was a perfect world, no one believed it. A world which is too harsh would also be rejected. Reproducing the Dark Ages, for example, means that there's a high mortality rate = low life expectancy = your Coppertops run down faster. Our current worls has the longest life expectancy, yet is believable. It's very practical.

4. The sim is needed because vegatables probably create less body that conscious individuals, and you need an environment for the brain to work in. I don't think that the brain will accept a zero-feedback environment (though I don't that's ever been tried: giving birth to a newborn in pitch blackness, then putting it into a sense-deprivation tank for a few months).

5. Why should Mouse be right? Indeed, every sense we have is translated into electricla impulses before it reaches our brains. Why can't the robots (watch part 1 and 4 of the Animatrix, www.theanimatrix.com) just force a human to taste chicken, record the neural feedback, and replay it every time a person eats chicken in VR? Perfectly plausible (considering our subject matter).

6. I think of deja vu as like artifacting in high-res video. If you run high-res video on a midrange PC, and try to open up 3D Studio Max at the same time, your video will slow WAY down, and sometimes skip to the point it's supposed to be at in normal speed. Thus, this deja vu could be just number-crunching slowdown when they're loading a new map of the world.

7. When you exit Everquest, does your world crash?

8. If the client runs a well-made virus, wha's preventing it from breaking into the server side and screwing with the server?


P.S. - yes, the fight scenes are cool, though my favorite scenes *SPOILER* are the 18-wheeler collision (just the collision) and the Neo-saves-Trinity clip.
philosophy? The Wachowskis were too ambitious.

edesignuk
May 20, 2003, 03:42 PM
I never understand people who have to pick holes in things, either watch it and like it, be entertained by it, or watch it and forget it. If you don't like it why spend so much time paying attention to be able to pick out holes? Man you must be bored.

Kid Red
May 20, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by medea
since everyone seems to be talking about why the love this movie, i'll post some reasons I don't.
1.why would an injury in the VR world carry over into the "real" world, there is no computer physically breaking your leg there.....
2.Why does everyone look the same inside and out of the matrix?
3.Humans are the ones that destroyed the earth trying to wipe out the machines, yet the machines while harvesting your energy are still letting you live in paradise, what happens if you were to free everyone? what kind of earth would they all be living on then. Plus the whole crew advocates the killing of innocent humans who are unaware of "the martix."
4.Back to the harvesting energy thing, if the whole point of using the humans is as a power source like batteries, why would they use all that power by running a huge reality sim when they need ENERGY. seems like a waste to me.
5.in the first one, one of the characters, mouse I belive, realises that computers can not truly have a sense of taste and therefore the "chicken" in the matrix is probabaly not close to real chicken etc. but why would it stop there, surely the same would go for colors, hearing and smells. and you can go much further into that.
6.deja vu as neo apparently experienced was not deja vu, deja vu is a feeling not and actual experience, and there is no reason a change in the vr enviroment should result in things repeating themselves.
7.when people exit the matrix they disapperar in the movie, this is not plausible, the disapperance of an object would cause a tear in the fabric of vr, and as far as the vr world is concerned, the body is just another physical object so why would it vanish.
8. why can you break the rules of the matrix just by willing it, in client-server system isn't security done on the server side, where actions attempted by clients are carefully checked against their list of allowable actions. Neo should never be allowed to fly in the matrix etc...

you can go on and on, the matrix is highly flawed and brings desensitised violence to a whole new level, why waste your time.
oh cause the fight scense are "cool" and it brings philosopical ideas to a new audience.....

1) already answered.
2) They don't. Notice the gritty black and dirty clothes then sun glasses and sweet leather? If you mean appearance/face structure, that's because that's the way they physically look in their water chamber tanks as noted in part 1.
3)Letting you live in paradise? Ah no. Lying in a tube sealed with water as in some twisted incubator is paradise? No. They are only dreaming a paradise.
4)Billions of people would produce much more engery then some computer would take to run.
5)Notice many colors in the martix? No, mostly saturated with high contrasts.
6)Deja vu is a glitch in the matrix. He said it because that was the first thing to come to his head after seeing the exact thing twice before your eyes in a matter of minutes. I would probably same the same thing. It's a figure of speech.
7) They are logging out. That's why they are no longer there, they aren't matter, there's no time to rip. Does your computer split in half when you log out a chat room?
8) He's essentially re-writing the code that governs the matrix on the fly. He's a hacker, probably the best and most likely choice. Think of the iTunes store, some people seem to think they can share music online by just willing it.


Obviously you are totally blinded by whatever it was you did not see does not make the movie flawed. I discounted every argument so i guess that means the movie fricking rocked. This movie had scenes, angles, and storytelling that has NEVER been displayed visually on film EVER. These movies are the way storytelling should be done. The directors show their comic book roots and no not disappoint in their style of film making.

Some will like it and some won't. Simple. But because some had a tissy over a few minor points and are surely debatable does not and should not take away from the 1st and now the 2nd and most undoubtedly the 3rd matrix will do for film making this century.

That's why it's worth seeing.

Freg3000
May 20, 2003, 04:08 PM
My biggest problem was that I didn't understand it. Don't try explaining it either, I never saw the fist movie. :( But that's not the movie's fault, so I am renting it this weekend. But I doubt I'll even understand it then.

Dont Hurt Me
May 20, 2003, 04:33 PM
THIS IS WHY IT IS CALLED SCIENCE FICTION

MrMacMan
May 20, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by edesignuk
I never understand people who have to pick holes in things, either watch it and like it, be entertained by it, or watch it and forget it. If you don't like it why spend so much time paying attention to be able to pick out holes? Man you must be bored.

NO!

WE MUST NIT PICK WHOLE IN A GOOD MOVIE, ARRRGGG!!!

King Cobra
May 20, 2003, 06:47 PM
Finally someone is brave enough to stand up and argue against the Matrix.

I would expect some back and forth arguments as just demonstrated by those in this thread going through medea's points one by one.

I can't stand the Matrix because I feel it is a souped up and modernized version of the classic movies with people defying the laws of Physics. In addiditon, these classics had a simple theme, a simple plot, and didn't need a sequel to get people's interest. In some anti-Physics classic movies, people walked on water, had bodies glow different colors, etc. With the Matrix, instead of people with supernatural abilities and a strong, positive meaning you have computers, people with both supernatural abilities and expensive costumes, a rather controversial level of understanding of the theme for the Matrix, and a temporary mindset away from what's real and what will never happen.

wdlove
May 20, 2003, 06:55 PM
Is it true that they morph Hitler and George W. Bush in the movie? Just goes to show the liberla bias of the Hollywood Elite!

BrittasMac
May 20, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
My biggest problem was that I didn't understand it. Don't try explaining it either, I never saw the fist movie. :( But that's not the movie's fault, so I am renting it this weekend. But I doubt I'll even understand it then.

Maybe so, but renting the first will go a long way towards explaining it.

pseudobrit
May 20, 2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Is it true that they morph Hitler and George W. Bush in the movie? Just goes to show the liberla bias of the Hollywood Elite!

They were showing images of war and destruction in the human era. There were many images. Hitler and GW were two of them.

I doubt anyone would call the brothers Wachowski "Hollywood elite."

pseudobrit
May 20, 2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by King Cobra
these classics had a simple theme, a simple plot, and didn't need a sequel to get people's interest.

The Matrix (1999) didn't need a sequel either. It was a self-contained story.

medea
May 20, 2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red

7) They are logging out. That's why they are no longer there, they aren't matter, there's no time to rip. Does your computer split in half when you log out a chat room?

Pardon me for quoting but this is put more eloquently than I would have put it:
" Neo and his colleagues can leave the virtual reality by being called up a telephone line. This may at first seem a very odd arrangement. Cronenberg had a much more obvious exit routine in his "eXistenZ". There, a player can stop the virtuality game by crying "eXistenZ is paused!", at which point the player's virtual body slumps down as if dead, and the mind's stream of consciousness finds itself back in the parent -- immersed once more in familiar surroundings. In "The Matrix", the virtual body completely disappears. Why? As far as the virtual world is concerned, the body is just another physical object. Why should it vanish when the mind exits the matrix?

Disappearing bodies always bother me in films. Why? Well, firstly it is a massive violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Yes, I acknowledge that these disappearances take place in a virtual world and that the mass and energy that are lost are only virtual. Nevertheless, a basic premise of robust virtual systems is that the laws of nature are respected. There are, as I have said, nomological gaps in the world -- but a body cannot disappear through a gap: such a disappearance tears a gash through the nomological fabric of the virtual reality. Disappearances are therefore massively implausible.

A corollary of this is the bang problem. If a physical body is simply annihilated, if it simply vanishes, then the space it previously occupied would become a vacuum, and the surrounding air - which is at atmospheric pressure, of course - would rush in. This would almost certainly cause a loud noise. Yet disappearances on film are always silent. Also, I have worries about the computer correctly drawing the boundary of the body that is to be disappeared. The person's shoes are to disappear, but not the piece of ground he is standing on. What if he is standing on a piece of chewing gum? Would the chewing gum disappear too? If not, why not? But if the chewing gum disappears, does that mean the whole pavement would have to disappear too, as it is stuck to it? Some pretty smart processing is required to get the boundary of the disappearance right.

I remember times when I've been filling colour into a drawn shape on a graphics package, and I accidentally left a tiny gap in the boundary that I had drawn. Suddenly the colour leaks out through the hole and fills the whole screen. Likewise, my concern is that the chewing gum could act as a bridge and cause not only the person to vanish, but also the chewing gum, along with the pavement that is attached to chewing gum, and the whole city that is attached to the pavement, and indeed the whole world.

To avoid this outcome, the exit process must rigorously follow the object-oriented architecture. Each visible object in the virtual reality is, we may suppose, represented inside the computer's database by a 'data object'. The data object contains all the information about the structure and disposition of the object and how it should be rendered. It can be moved around inside the virtual reality by changing its spatial coordinates. The data object would include precise boundaries of itself. In the context of the film, those boundaries would include, for instance, Neo's shoes but not the chewing gum he was standing on. When the exit occurs, that whole object would be removed, but not the surroundin objects. Thus, by shifting from an atomic model of the virtual world to an object-oriented model, we can see how fast entries and exits can make sense. (I discuss this in more detail in my essay in "Taking the Red Pill", see www.benbellabooks.com).

Nonetheless, on balance, my feeling is that Cronenberg's exit routine is best: only the mind departs, and the body simply loses its animation. This seems the more elegant solution.

What about real life? What happens when a mind leaves this virtual reality -- the one you are in right now? Not very much, in fact. During an out-of-body experiences, which is a good approximation to exiting the normal virtuality, the body just lies there in a relaxed and unconscious state. Likewise, during dreams - even in lucid dreaming -- when the mind completely logs out from this virtuality, the rest of us still see the body lying there. "

medea
May 20, 2003, 10:11 PM
oh and edesign, I have as much right to post why I dislike all the hooplah over the matrix as all of you who constantly praise it, you must be really bored for spending all your time talking about a silly movie as well then eh?

LethalWolfe
May 20, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by medea
oh and edesign, I have as much right to post why I dislike all the hooplah over the matrix as all of you who constantly praise it, you must be really bored for spending all your time talking about a silly movie as well then eh?


Well edesign only contributed 51 words to this thread while you've contributed 1188. I think we know who is spending more time fixating about the nuances of a fictitious world. ;)


Lethal

medea
May 20, 2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Well edesign only contributed 51 words to this thread while you've contributed 1188. I think we know who is spending more time fixating about the nuances of a fictitious world. ;)


Lethal
yes and I guess we should overlook the fact you actually did a word count......

pseudobrit
May 20, 2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by medea
Disappearing bodies always bother me in films.

Huh? I can't think of many movies where bodies disappear.

Anyway, if the problem is that it violates the law of conservation of matter, then what about when they appear in the Matrix?

They appear, then they disappear; nothing has been created nor destroyed. You end up with what you started -- nothing.

shadowfax
May 21, 2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by medea
"Disappearing bodies always bother me in films. Why? Well, firstly it is a massive violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Yes, I acknowledge that these disappearances take place in a virtual world and that the mass and energy that are lost are only virtual. Nevertheless, a basic premise of robust virtual systems is that the laws of nature are respected. There are, as I have said, nomological gaps in the world -- but a body cannot disappear through a gap: such a disappearance tears a gash through the nomological fabric of the virtual reality. Disappearances are therefore massively implausible." this is utterly stupid, if you ask me, medea. this man is living before einstein and planck, to all outward appearances. did you know that each atom in your body actually obeys laws of quantum physics, which allow them to (a) be in multiple places at one time and (b) move from one place to another without actually travelling the distance in between? this is all on a single-particle basis, and naturally very short range (by nature). but if these laws could be manipulated the way classical physics is manipulated to take a rocket to space ("That's ********** impossible!"), it's not a really huge stretch of the mind to suppose it possible, by some property of quantum paralellism, to make your atoms' spins synchronize and all "jump" at once.

don't critique my ideas, unless you really want to. i have no defence for them, other than to say that there are real physical properties of particles that allow them to do things your authow doesn't believe can be done, and there are properties of these particles that allow them to synchronize and do the same thing at once.

It's sci-fi, supposedly occurring hundreds if not thousands of years in the future.

pseudobrit
May 21, 2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Shadowfax
It's sci-fi, supposedly occurring hundreds if not thousands of years in the future.

You bring up a good point -- don't forget, just because it's "impossible" today doesn't mean it will be 50 years from now.