Hmm, no. You don't necessarily want endlessly increasing information content because that's more work for your brain to filter. As I pointed out below, 48 FPS has been well within our technical capabilities for a long time - far longer than the current polarized-3d technology, for example. Yet there isn't a body of 48 FPS films out there, in contrast to 3d, super-widescreen, movies with vibrating chairs, 'smell-o-vision' and various other technical innovations.

TV frame rates (at least in the US) are ~25% faster than film, and have been for years. Standard definition video doesn't have the same resolution of film, but it's still quite viewable on a medium-size projection screen. HD is ~4x better and can be projected on large screens in excellent quality. So why hasn't higher-frame rate video become popular for film (by which I mean moveis, not celluloid)? There's no problem in projecting it (most commercial theaters have a HD projector next to the main one); there's no magic about projecting at 48 FPS, and indeed many affordable pro and semi-pro HD cameras can shoot at 60 FPS progressive.

You might as well argue that dance music should approach ever-higher BPMs because increasingly fast tracks incorporate more musical information. Now I do (sometimes) like very fast dance music of 200+ BPM but that's so high above normal human heart rates that it has an extremely limited audience because most people just don't want beats coming at them that fast.