Is equivalent to saying that the conditions of experience are always the same for all users and for all time... And saying that tools could measure what "goes down a wire with great accuracy" but humans could not, to justify the impossibility or the value of a perceptive experience, is equivalent to the saying that human is ONLY an imperfect deluded measuring tool.... Which is dumb to say the least....Because it is human perceiving consciousness that correlate all POSSIBLE measuring tools....It is human perceiving consciousness that could change the conditions of the experience and create new dimensions or new experience through new parameters and creating new measuring tools to explore new dimensions with new parameters....It is ONLY consiousness that could give meaning and interpret the tool....
Let me rephrase it for you so you understand my point ...
1+1 = 2
1.001 + 1 = 2.001
Now whether you perceive it as 2.002 or not, really does not matter. It is 2.001. What you perceive is your current interpretation of reality. Reality did not change because your perception did. Tomorrow you may perceive it as 1.999. It will however, still be 2.001.
We are talking electrical signals, which means we are essentially talking numbers. We can measure the number and know it is right. Today you may perceive the number differently from yesterday and tomorrow you may perceive it different again, but it did not change.
That is point one.
Point 2. The human eye has a central resolution of about 6 million photosites, give or take. If I more an object 0.01mm, no matter the resolution of the human eye, you will never be able to detect that, let alone measure it with any reliability. An instrument with a few thousand photosites could be created to both identify the movement of 0.01mm and how far. Give it 6 million photosites and it will measure to 0.01mm in 2 dimensions and detect movement in both.
Now, that instrument may not be able to identify let alone be able to appreciate the Mona Lisa, but a similar one could tell you if there was a subtle change in the color of even the smallest element of the Mona Lisa based on a reference, and if you moved the painting 0.01mm. It has no idea what a picture is, what it represents, etc. That in no way at all negates its ability to compare, with vastly greater detail than any human can, a change from a reference.
That is what analyzing an electrical signal does. It allows us to determine a change, from a reference, in vastly greater detail than any human can. It is not even close. We have enough body of evidence to be confident that identified changes may or may not be audible. There is a grey area, and normally engineers will be very clear about this and even state that that something is in the range where it may be audible. Thermal modulation of a fuse in a speaker line would be a good example. It is in the range of audibility, and even though no one has shown they can pick out reliably a properly sized (not grossly undersize) fuse, it is accepted it could be audible. However, when the identified difference is far away from any evidence of audibility, then we confidently say no, you won't hear a difference --until proven otherwise--. Proof is not some conjecture on an audio site. It is a properly implemented test to eliminate bias.
Contrary to the ignorant opinions on thes forums, these tests actually do matter, at least if you care about audio reproduction. If we can't ascertain what is truly audible and matters, then how can we ever hope to move the science of reproduction forward. If you can't build on past work, then you are just continually recreating the wheel.