So by your definition, there is no reason to understand everything completely as we already understand enough to prove what we already think we know. I'd prefer to look forward, or we'd still be listening to AM radio.
By agreeing, then by definition, you realize our method of capturing and recreating is flawed. So sample rate at this point doesn't matter. Which is my point, we have yet to recreate the sound and feel of the music that was created by the instruments and voices of the original performer.
4K video does provide pixels of a size within the resolving power of our eyes at the correct distance. 192khz sampling rates aren't analogous to that. And even 4k pictures from too far away look no better than 2k pictures. This happens when they fall below the resolution of the eye in angular terms. 192 khz sampling is more analogous to saying video displays with ultraviolet light output beyond human vision look better even though we cannot see it. More than 24 bit in audio would be analogous to having a range from total darkness to brighter than our eye can stand without being blinded (or ears deafened).
Now the reason live music is not fully re-created has to do with soundfields imposed upon a different room from the recording. 24 bit allows definition in terms of loudness from total quiet to louder than we could stand with enough fineness there is no issue. 48 khz or so sampling covers the frequencies we can hear. The complete recreation of the soundfield at our ears is another matter and not limited by the basic resolution of digital audio at normal sample rates. Any advance is in manipulating the signals we get to our hears, not in the basic fidelity of the digital audio medium. That might mean more channels and/or different type miking and some more advanced DSP. Those higher bits and sample rates get us no closer to a solution for those problems. Stereo is a convincing illusion or trick anyway.
I appreciate your write up here, it is in depth. But by just accepting 48khz sampling as the final answer, just because it covers our ears frequencies seems disappointing.. because--even by your confirmation above-- that we have yet to match/capture a live music experience, seems to prove we have to be missing something. I still think we have a long way to go in the recreation of the full visual and audio recreation of what this real world has to offer. Is there a way to truly capture it? Perhaps not, but you cannot deny the magnificence of what is real. To go back to color as an example. Color is relative, and a dog's eyes have more rods than cones to see better in darkness that which they see in this world. Humans have 3 (RGB) cone receptors. Butterflies have 5 (we have yet to determine what they fully see), Mantis Shrimp have 16 (This is beyond our comprehension). The point is, we really don't know all the answers in life, and have a long way to go in being able to recreate it. Far from a 4000 pixel image or 16/24 bit+ audio sample in comparison.