Interesting. So I guess you don’t believe a guitar gets broken in?
This is an interesting question for discussion, because there are lots of variables. I don't know the answer and can only make guesses.
I think they do wind up sounding a little different over time, but is it the result of being played, the glues and finishes drying, the wood aging, some combination of the above, or,'I dunno what it is but it seems to matter'?
Then there's the matter of some acoustic guitars - even very good ones - not aging well and 'going sour', while others age beautifully. This seems to be independent of being played often. I wondered if I was alone in thinking this, but I read an interview with James Taylor and he mentioned it as a reason he retires some of his guitars. And he certainly plays the heck out of them for years.
I have trouble thinking that playing a solid body guitar and vibrating it in doing so does anything to change a piece of wood that's no longer living, and yet many people swear that it does. However, I think the top on an acoustic or hollow body - made to vibrate to amplify the notes, and much, much thinner - ages more like a speaker cone and becomes a bit looser over the years as a result of the wood needing to move quite a bit more.
The more believable theory with solid bodies is that the wood sap and other stuff crystallizing over time, the finish drying, the glues drying, etc, matter somewhat.
All of my current guitars are nitro finished. I've been happier in the long run with the tone of nitro finished guitars. Doesn't mean it's somehow 'better', but it does mean it seems to do better for me, and I like the way it ages.
However, I don't think a non-living piece of wood 'breathes' better with nitro, because that piece of wood is obviously incapable of breathing. But the other factors might apply.