>>68
I've never liked the anthropic principle because it doesn't really help explain the functioning of anything. It's offered as an explanation for why things are as they are, but it's just a trivial response. It's just, "they are as they are because if they were otherwise, they would be otherwise." I couldn't disagree with that, but it doesn't seem to say anything at all. It doesn't say what cause implies these observed effects. It sounds to me like it positions the cause as the effect.