Sure reality has extreme close ups, action sequences, and panning. I'm not sure what traveling refers to, since the obvious interpretation is absurd. I don't get the argument with changing camera angles. If our eyes really do need 1/24th of a second to adjust for a cut, then a high-fps film can replicate that with multiple blank frames.
I get that cinema isn't reality, but the more capable the medium is, the more choices the filmmaker has for telling their story. I can buy that 24fps might be the best choice sometimes. I don't buy that it's the best choice for everything. It would be a crazy coincidence if a framerate chosen a century ago due to technical limitations when dealing with cellulose just happens to be the perfect framerate for cinema.
Extreme close ups, action sequences, camera panning and traveling are not part of reality. Nor do we change camera angles several times per minute in a discontinuous fashion. Cinema is not a full real world simulation, it is a technical way to tell stories.