Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.
Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.
Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.
Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby! :-)
I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?
I guess I've never heard those predictions, but many cars do have rear view cameras and displays now. As to your other points; mirrors have no lag - really? They are also noisy and cause vibration. The bottom line - what is a viewfinder for? To compose and focus an image - thats it, right? I really don't care if the mirror provides "infinite dynamic range and color gamut.", because my eyes don't and it isn't reflected in the recorded image! Eyes work well enough, but can be aided by technology [e.g. night vision goggles]. I personally couldn't care less if the image through an optical is 'better' - whatever that means if the electronic viewfinder can provide assistance that will improve my images, up my keeper rate AND gets rid of the mirror.
While the current interest in mirrorless cameras seems primarily focused on reducing size and weight, there are plenty of other good reasons to dump the mirror. There is no reason that larger, FF pro cameras couldn't also be mirrorless.