I would argue that education could benefit immensely from VR. Why explain it when you can show it. Imagine something like Fantastic Voyage in high school biology.
Nobody said everything has to translate into VR. Even then, showing those abstract concepts in a boundary free VR world could do a lot towards understanding those concepts.
Unfortunately, what you said doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it's to the extent where it almost completely hampers what you're saying. So much of education is teaching/explaining these abstract concepts -- otherwise every day at school would be "movie day" -- so most of education probably cannot benefit from VR (unless you're talking about some sort of telepresence where you're in a virtual 3D MOOC democratizing access to a Harvard professor's lectures).
I need an operational definition here. How do you "show" an abstract concept? What is a "boundary free VR world"? The biology one is a good example but it's low hanging fruit because it's so tangible.
For example, if I crack open Unity right now, what do I build to teach someone what, say, Hilbert space is using VR? How do I teach someone the intermediate value theorem? How does VR add anything to the explanation more than a whiteboard would?
Even still, how do you demonstrate that someone will learn more/better with the VR? How convinced are you that it will be the case?
Lastly, given that VR is just a game with stereoscopic display and more limited UI/UX possibilities, why doesn't there yet exist the non-stereoscopic panacea computer game of education? Does depth perception REALLY add all that much?
