Comment 13 by Quine

It may seem that way, but that is because prior to quantum physics, everyone gave metaphysical nothing a free pass on existence. Now we find out there is not evidence that metaphysical nothing exists anywhere or was any-ever. The days of the free pass are over. So, when you look at the question above, and insert something impossible for the last word, it collapses. Thus, before you can show that the question has meaning in the real world, you have to find evidence for the existence (or at least the possibility of existence) of metaphysical nothing in the real world.

That's quite a cop out.....as by definition no experiment is going to find metaphysical nothing. Ontologically, by definition metaphysical nothing does not exist. If it did exist it would not be metaphysical nothing !

The cop out arises because clearly 'things' does not mean just particles or waves.....but all causal factors in anything existing. Metaphysical nothing is not just an absence of stuff.....but an absence of any reasons why stuff might exist or any structural or existential constraints or laws. Metaphysical nothing excludes even the laws of physics.

That is the proper context of 'why does something exist as opposed to nothing ?'