Sean, since you're bored...

Do you listen to CD's?
Do you watch DVD's or Satellite TV?

It's all digital.

The reason there are differences is not due to the fact that light is changed to numbers but that the processes today are not that good to fool the eye.
But there is no reason they cannot be improved upon - but I really don't know if it will be cost effective, namely the sensor size.

There's a very interesting article here:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

(prices skyrocket the larger the silicon is)

Now, just suppose it's possible to overcome all the difficulties and make it cost effective.

Would traditional photo be dead?
Is painting dead? Why to paint a portrait if a photo is so much close to reality?

The only thing that would significantly kill analog photo would be the lack of light sensitive material.

It's easier to say I will make my plates and paper than to do it...

Jorge O