I find the argument against anthropic arguments to be weak. * The terms life and intelligence lack formal definitions. * The predicate why lacks a formal defi

I find the argument against anthropic arguments to be weak. * The terms life and intelligence lack formal definitions. * The predicate why lacks a formal definition. * The argument does not address the maximum number of possible configurations of the universe, which dilutes any quantitative arguments. Most importantly, the cardinality of the maximum number of possible configurations is not addressed. For example, the possibility of an aleph number [0] was not addressed. * The argument does not address qualitatively different structures of the universe, such as universes with discontinuous lengths or types of affine spaces [1] where measurement as we understand it does not exist. The list of concerns above is not exhaustive, and I don't think addressing them individually will necessarily salvage the argument. While stronger arguments for or against the anthropic principle are possible, I think they deserve much more rigor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affine_space