How do you argue with this Laplace argument?
I remind you that the Okama brother is not an absolute instrument. It only says that "in most cases".
In this case, Laplace’s argument fits perfectly.
A vacuum (in this case, nothing) of doping and more (at least in volume in space). The matter in this (in the case of the world) is only a small part and is thus an exception to the Okkam shave.
and wiki:
It is important to remember that the Okcam shave is not an axiom, but a presumption, that is, it does not prohibit more complex explanations in principle, but only recommends the order of consideration of hypotheses, which in most cases is the best.