This is what I like to refer to as the "bias of computing." The idea is that we deal with so much scientific progress in our fields that we tend to think that scientific progress can take us anywhere and no restriction will stand up for long.
However, this is a fallacy that really has no grounding in the laws of physics. What reason do we have for thinking that information can travel faster than the speed of light? Moreover, what evidence do we have that the second law of thermodynamics could be reversed on a macro scale?
The assumption that all barriers will fall as others have seems unreasonable and contradictory to our current evidence.
But if we never dreamed it so, then we never would have tried and never would have broken down those other barriers. Just the fact that we've broken down all those other barriers inspires me to believe.
I think predetermining that faster-than-light information transmission is possible is a bastardization of scientific progress. I don't see physics as a quest to break barriers, I see it as a quest to understand the nature of the universe. If the nature of the universe is that humanity will never colonize another world in a lifetime, then so be it. We simply have to learn to deal with the realities of our existence.
Funny you should try to imply that our fundamental physics are somehow wrong in a serious way that we have a high chance of finding a deeper physics that shows "impossible" things by today's physics are possible (want to take bets on timeframes?), on an article about two space probes that have lasted 34 years out there because of our understanding of the fundamental laws. As for not understanding the "why" of inertia and gravity, we nevertheless have general relativity which is pretty darn good.
For example, we still don't understand inertia and gravity.
Nothing is impossible.