Leibnitz felt one factor in us living in the best of all possible worlds is that we live according to a kind of law: for instance physics would either be far more ordinary (less complex) or far more complicated if natural-evils like hurricanes or fires were to be removed "by law" of God. This at least seems to be one of his views reconciling the problem of evil.

Berkeley was an Idealist, and felt all of our worlds were in such harmony with each other through God: any of us might be able to change reality through intently altering our mental contents / perceptions, yet the presence of God's mind is so overpowering that it isn't mere habit of ours (eg the difficulty in imagining the world differently, exaccerbated due to lack of practice / skill) that keeps the world coherent, rather it is because God's mind coordinates us into harmony.

Over the past while I've been feeling like I'm taking metaphysical naturalism for granted, so since I don't have any good reasons to believe that I've dropped it. I'm no longer a metaphysical rationalist.

However I'm not sure if Berkeley was a naturalist or not. I'm thinking his Idealism mightn't make Leibniz' "best possible world" so solid, unless God has an express preference for simplicity and consistency. Perhaps it is pleasure at other minds experiencing coherence rather than challenges to ther reality (no black cats in the Matrix) or it'd be displeasure at anything that challenges God's mental-setup.

Not
sure.

Just some thought.