I don't see why the larger variation in traditional diets guarantees a higher chance of providing some nutrients that we need but that we don't know we need.
I'll try one last time with an analogy.
Lets play a game: I will think of two numbers (range: 1..10) and you're going to guess which numbers they are.
I'm going to do you a big favor and guarantee you: I'm going to always pick 7. I will also guarantee you, the other number will never be 7.
To reiterate the givens: My numbers will be in the domains: [7] AND [1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9]
You get to pick two numbers. Would you pick 7 AND 7?
I hope not. 7 AND 7 by definition will always lose (probability of winning: 0%). Introducing variety for the second number will clearly increase your probability of winning to 1/8 = 12.5%.
Granted, the probability of winning is still low, and 12.5% assumes a random distribution, but its higher than 0%.
Now, similarly, lets a play a game: I am going to think of all of the nutrition that you need and you're allowed to guess two meals that will encompass all of that nutrition.
I will do you a favor and guarantee you: Soylent will get all of the food that we know we need (if you pick Soylent as one of the meals you will only need a tiny set of additional nutrition to win). I will also then guarantee you, we need things that we don't know, therefore since Soylent only has the things we know, we need at least one nutritional "thing" not in Soylent.
To reiterate the givens: Meals will be in the domains: [Soylent] AND [...everything except Soylent]
You get to chose two meals. Would you pick Soylent AND Soylent?
I hope not. Soylent AND Soylent by definition (in this game) will always lose (probability of winning: 0%). Introducing variety for the second meal will clearly increase your probability of winning. The increase in probability is not calculable, however it is non-zero.
Granted, the probability of winning is still very low, however, variety provides a non-zero probability while only-Soylent provides 0%. Clearly then, variety is the better option over only-Soylent.
Does that at all help? Am I just being trolled?
Either way, this was fun. glhf, and thanks for reading.
To make the issue with your analogy clearer, note that you could invent any somewhat edible product and make the claim that adding it to your diet makes your diet safer, because of the possibility that it contains nutrients we need but which we don't know we need.