The anthropic principle, also known as the “observation selection effect”, is the hypothesis that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, because observations could only happen in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, we would not have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the notion that the universe seems to be fine tuned.Wikipedia
I gather the Anthropic Principle bridges cosmology, physics, and philosophy. I vaguely recall watching or reading some interesting discussion, but I’ve never studied this in depth. I’ll just include one thought for now.
I can see that the Anthropic Principle makes the fateful assumption that our current complicated narratives and patchwork theories of cosmology and physics are representative of the ultimate solution to nature. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth. I think a model with positive and negative energy carrying unit potentials in a Euclidean void with no known beginning nor end in time and space is the ultimate solution, and there are only two large scale parameters that need to be understood which are the density of the unit potentials and the density of their energy. In my model, there is no need for an Anthropic principle.
The Anthropic Principle is used to explain to some degree why all these moving parts, like age of the universe combined with all kinds of other processes that are time dependent explain how we the observer can exist in the present age. But in my opinion the age of the universe is unknown and possibly infinite and the laws are extremely simple (a single potential field with many generators) so that again, it doesn’t really seem to me that this principle is interesting or relevant at all.