Luck isn’t a refusal to explain; it’s the claim that there’s nothing to explain. Every particular outcome of a lottery is improbable, and nobody demands an explanation for which ticket won.

The lottery point is the standard one, and the firing-squad reply answers it. What needs explaining is not that some outcome occurred but that this specifically remarkable outcome did, the way a lottery won by the commissioner’s brother-in-law invites explanation even though every ticket was equally unlikely. A universe that permits chemistry is the brother-in-law outcome, not a random ticket. The deeper version of the objection, that the constants have no probability distribution at all, is the normalizability problem, and it is taken up under the Barnes exhibit.