Sounds like a bunch of fake crap to me.
If you have a polygon converter hows does that help you are still basing it off the original polygon all you have done is just change it into points in a polygon shape, the only way to actually do this properly would be to make achieves of very detailed, high quality structures of every object, with multiple variation within them. for instance with sand you would have 10-1000 different sand crystals and then you would colour them individually and chuck them into your environment. If you can have infinite detail (which you can't) then no game will have better or worse graphics so there will be no need to improve graphics so once the item is made above the perceivable resolution of the eye then down graded to the resolution of the monitor you could keep the models for life, in the case of inanimate objects as well as cars, landmarks and pretty much anything that isn't original to a game. Another problem with this whole idea is that most objects interiors are never seen and therefore the interior design of the structure is rather irrelevant, of course this could lead to very dynamic destructible environment however you then still have to code how the object will break apart (wood splits, rock crumble, metal melts/bends and twists,which would also take time, so plenty of jobs in the games industry for material scientists then, and mathematicians trying to create the correct real world effects of different objects and their relative effects on the world once user interactions occur on them.
When you think about that it would get kind of boring, different games having different styles make them more interesting, however the real question is "Are lifelike graphics really perfect graphics?"
As for Unlimited detail, I have created protein structures using point cloud data from Xray Crystal structures and I will tell you now, a top of the range Imac won't run more than 3-4, 300 residue (~3000 atom) atomic structures smoothly at the same time and takes 5-10 seconds to render them in different styles with only one open.
So though entirely possible to do as a theory, no computer could run it, not to mention not needing too due to the relatively low resolution of screens. If you notice they never mention any type of equipment they are running it on or even how they are creating or rendering it.
But to be honest anyone who believed this was real was a bit of a fool anyway.