[MD] Chance

[Platt Holden]

> [Ian]
> because "why is there something rather than nothing ?" is still the 
> first-cause question.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Not every question has an answer. Apart from that, "why" presumes a 
> "reason". It very well may be that there is no "why" at all. And even 
> if we suppose there is, its something we can never know, either way.

Depends on what you mean by "know." I know that the MOQ answer to the 
question makes sense . . . because a universe is better than no universe. 

> [Ian]
> There is this intangible / ineffable hole where physics meets 
> metaphysics, even a quality metaphysics.
> 
> [Arlo]
> A "hole" that is impossible to fill. A central "mu" of which all 
> "physics" or "metaphysics" or "art" or anything else can offer is an analogy.

"Betterness," the fundamental premise of the MOQ, fills the "hole" nicely 
and is directly felt without any conceptual intermediary such as analogy.

Platt