Great work. Definitely shows that empirical approaches can lead to similar conclusions as philosophical ones. Your framing of our ignorance as the frontier (my word) of a logical, coherent starting point for philosophy, or at least where these shouldn’t mix, is brilliant (and a target for controversy, for some reason). This has been my contention for years. Science is said to "need more time," but then this cop out is errantly extrapolated to mean it can reach over into what you called the "why," or even points of ignorance that will confine science simply by function (like collecting data from an alternate universe). I’d like to add that this makes your higher universes a bit more than a place holder for ignorance if we find empirical data that points out philosophical stream of consciousness logically, deductively, toward sound conclusions. For example, I’ll give many worlds advocates a slight advantage over simulation until we are able to start measuring glitches. This is why I am a Christian, in fact. I’d be more inclined to give credence to multiverse-based philosophical conclusions if they weren’t based on empirical evidence that only leads to similarly valid explanations based on a higher power. So, when we unearth more and more actual data on Jesus, or I myself experience the transforming nature of a biblical passage, my philosophical inclination leans to a supreme consciousness, as I have now gathered more evidence pointing toward this than other philosophies. It’s quite refreshing that you’ve chosen to write honestly toward this perspective, to which I will say that you’ve hit on some uncannily similar conclusions as mine, while approaching them from a slightly different angle. Thank you for the candor, but pray God help you for the flak you’ll take for it.