It is completely not about being more or less impressive.

Care to elaborate? Because otherwise I can say "it totally is!", and we leave at that.

That's why it wasn't the entirety of my comment. Sigh.

Absolutely not. You can always add the two and get even more predictive power.

This is plainly wrong, as any Bayesian-minded person will know. P(X|A, B) = P(X|A) is not a priori forbidden by the laws of probability.

Saying "absolutely not" when nobody's actually done the experiment yet (AFAIK) is disingenuous.

Of course, nothing excludes (but at the same time, nothing warrants) that different kind of phoenomena will emerge in the investigation of higher resolution experiments.

If you actually believe this, then this conversation is completely pointless, and I'm annoyed that you've wasted my time.