Your speakers are analog. They sound different when they are dusty. Your ears are analog. Things sound different when you have dirty ears. Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem only applies when there are no frequencies outside of the sample range, which doesn't happen in real life. None of this matters, because like I said it's trivial to have orders of magnitude more accuracy than you need. Digital is just way cheaper to copy accurately, so that's why it has become dominant, and that's fine, but the idea that it's inherently more representative of reality is just gibberish.

Vinyl sounds different per use, since it wears out.

But isn't live music analogue?

Not just any time it's copied or generally over time, but each playback can degrade the quality. Record pins erode the channels, magnetic heads affect the strength of the magnetic field they read.

Reads, copies, and time don't (necessarily) degrade digital media, even with lossy compression (time can, but any time it's copied, it resets the clock to as good as the media can give; analog doesn't get that reset). Lossy compression only degrades it on conversion and there's a bunch of control over the shape of that degradation (with the intent of it not being detectable to our ears, though it obviously also depends on the bandwidth available).

That is an actual fair criticism. Well, part of it. All of our current digital media technology actually degrades over time faster than analog ones, but they're so easy to copy that it's not really a problem for things that people like to make copies of. It is a problem for archiving though. I wasn't trying to argue that digital has no advantages. Just that it's not magically better in every way.

The only meaningful difference between them is that digital is cheaper to copy. Your ears are analog though, so everything you've ever heard in your entire life is 100% pure analog, and I explicitly said in the post you seem to think that you're disagreeing with that they're both orders of magnitude better than they need to be.

Sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're both plenty good enough, and digital is cheaper to copy accurately. It's also actually possible to make a copy of a copy of a copy digitally and have it still be accurate. I wasn't attempting to say we shouldn't use digital, or that it has no advantages, just that the argument in the original post makes no sense.