The same can be said about all human perception in general, not just colors. Artists exploit this for centuries, and are trying to formalize this. Newer color appearance models try to precisely quantify perception effects to make better color appearance possible.
I'm not sure how to explain why further than that, it's not even wrong, something I've definitely seen is the more people know about color, the more complex it seems when usually it's more simple when you start thinking across reference frames / viewing conditions
Source: builds color spaces using color appearance models
Rendering to the display device screen uses perceptual intent: a conversion of color space of the display under some assumptions about screen viewing environment etc. [1]
With better models we can improve this conversion. Article mentions that large color differences are not perceived as acute as the current models (Riemman etc) suggested so new model could boost the color difference to achieve that higher acuity.
[1] https://blog.colorgate.com/en/rendering-intent-explained
Mental model for color space that keeps things on track is it's just like any 3D space. Here, we could say "distance space" like "color space" and two "distance spaces" are miles and kilometers, (two color spaces are RGB and $ONE_FOLLOWING_FROM_PAPER)
If we found the distance equation in distance space differed from expectations, due to interesting things about physical geometry, that wouldn't create new places.
Why? The map is not the territory. The physical space still exists as it did.
Moving from distance to color: the physical display gamut is the territory. The map is the color space.
If we discover our distance metric in the space is flawed, we'd measure distance between colors as different than before. That wouldn't create new colors in color space.
Source: I create color spaces