Anthropic principle has been used by too many people to meaning too many different ideas. It really should just refer to the mere tautology that "I can only fin

Anthropic principle has been used by too many people to meaning too many different ideas. It really should just refer to the mere tautology that "I can only find myself exist, and the world in a state compatible with my existence". That is a perspective specific statement. It answers questions formulated from my/our first-person perspective: "why do I find the fundamental constants compatible with my existence?". However, it does not apply to questions formulated objectively (i.e. when it requires a perspective invariant response), for example "why are the fundamental constants have these values?". That question calls for an impartial causal model or scientific answer. Anthropic principle simply isn't it. That doesn't mean AP is wrong, it is a tautology, correct by definition. Neither is AP useless. It is the correct counter to teleological arguments such as fine-tuning. However, treating it as a scientific explanation is not correct. That being said, that confusion is totally understandable. The current state of anthropic reasoning is quite messy. There are contending theories on many related paradoxes. The sleeping beauty problem, the doomsday argument, the fine-tuned universe, the simulation argument, etc. Like before, I find these paradoxes are caused by ignoring the role of perspectives as well. I explained my solution to the related debate on my website https://www.sleepingbeautyproblem.com https://www.sleepingbeautyproblem.com if anyone is interested.