.
1. I don't want to be critical, but you cannot do math like that, it's simply not scientific. To know the divergence you must know the % of all things that are different and you simply cannot do it in your mind.
Maths isn't a science, it doesn't follow anything resembling the scientific method. People who say such things are generally not acquainted with mathematics in the slightest. Any time maths is referred to as a science it is a reference to the archaic meaning of the word as a general term for knowledge as it meant in Latin. A certain kind of experimental philosophy took a near-monopoly on the word 'science' in the 19th century and since then the term science applies explicitly.
Maths is never scientific, it does not follow the scientific method in any way shape or form, maths has it's own method. It may be used as a tool in science, but it isn't scientific. Just because mathematics predicts something, doesn't mean that prediction exists, despite what the mathematical naturalists claim (that you can see and touch maths like you can a tree... to be a tad polemic.) It is technically an art, the art of expression. Paradox's math can be perfect and based on completely crap premises, even if the initial numbers are based on some kind of special revelation it would not invalidate his methodology, only his process in the manipulation of the numbers can invalidate his methodology. And yes, using special revelation isn't scientific in the slightest (unless appealing to the centuries old archaic meaning of the word... long before the term 'scientist' was coined in 1834), but the mathematics may still be good.
Similarly with Rhine's famous work on ESP, his maths has been shown to be unflawed, yet his science may be questionable due to experimental flaws.
There is not enough date presented by Paradox as per his methods and what he means by and with how he uses those numbers.
Secondly, you don't need to know the % of all things, Paradox is clearly talking about relative divergence and not absolute divergence.
Although absolute divergence isn't too difficult as 100% is simply the estimated lifespan of the universe and an estimation of possible significant and/or relevant choices from which centrality can be placed at the mean and all things separated thereof considered to be and calculated as divergent. If this is an acceptable critique, then we should throw the entirety (or at least most) of psychology out the window, because it is quite obvious that psychology is built on the personal premises of psychologists without regard to how sensible the ideas are in reality, i.e. personal/special revelation, and they obviously do not grasp the human mind at all as there are dozens of fundamentally contradictory schools of psychology competing like rabid dogs over grant money. No, the psychologist draws straws and build a complex framework with no bearing on reality, then sets off to find evidence that their idiosyncratic views are they be-all of human existence. At the very least, Paradox is operating similarly as he has a theory and is setting out to prove it by collecting whatever he can find as evidence... and like with psychology, definitive evidence is fleeting. If we exclude such methodology as what Paradox is using, we must also exclude many kinds of sciences.
As Isaac Newton said in Principia, Second Edition;
"For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."
