Follow-up: if you want a great example of this, you know how movies can look reasonably smooth, even though they're maybe as low as 24 frames per second? That's because the camera is getting an exposure over that 1/24th of a second that contains motion blur.

A YouTuber I watch started doing 60 fps video at one point. But even though there were more frames, it looked badly choppy. I believe he got a camera that could do higher frame rates that probably had a variable frame rate setting, and each "exposure" was less than 1/60th of a second. The stills were extremely crisp and clear when paused, but watching it was pretty uncomfortable, felt like it jittered, especially with rapidly-moving objects.

In theory, we probably don't need a monitor that can do 1000 Hz or whatever. We could probably just render 1000 frames a second and then combine them virtually and send them to the monitor at a lower frame rate, and it'd probably look pretty close. Heck, if you have a particular software package that can compute a motion blur without needing to render every frame

and a lot of games have not-so-good "motion blur" that try to simulate this

then you wouldn't even need to render all the frames.

But this is a simple way to get an accurate motion blur that will work with pretty much all software.