You could make the exact same argument about quantum mechanics.
Quantum physics is often suggested as essential in understanding the physical world, such that without the proper understanding of quantum physics, we can’t do mechanics.
Say you are working out how fast a ball would fall. You could use the equations for acceleration and gravity to work this out. All this is straightforward.
However many quantum physicists would say this reasoning is simple-minded and technically incorrect. What you actually have to do is describe the evolution of the wave function of all the particle that make up the ball...
To say the very least, this quantum mechanical consideration seems unnecessary. Good scientific theories should be able to predict our observations, using experiments to evaluate them directly reflects that. The quantum mechanical view above cuts off this tie by “zooming out” and taking a god’s eye view of the entire universe first. By doing so, the computational complexity of calculating anything becomes impossible. Then they propose the solution: use statistical techniques to approximate the solution. It enables us to do science just like we did before.
So before quantum mechanics was widely discussed, when people focused on experiment results without minding the entire universe or its possible interactions with every particle, we were selecting theories based on the wrong reasoning. And how convenient that the correct reasoning with the proper quantum mechanical assumption gives the same effect as before. This is too coincidental and unparsimonious.
It is sensible to suspect our reasoning before was right all along. If so, what does this mean for quantum mechanics? etc.
We favor quantum mechanics because it can explain/predict some experiment observartions while classical mechanics cannot. This reasoning is exactly what I am arguing for.
Anthropics however argue without regarding “I” as a random sample there is no way to use our observations to evaluate theories. Because no matter how unlikely, any observation possible would have happened in the entire universe.
You could make the exact same argument about quantum mechanics.
We favor quantum mechanics because it can explain/predict some experiment observartions while classical mechanics cannot. This reasoning is exactly what I am arguing for.
Anthropics however argue without regarding “I” as a random sample there is no way to use our observations to evaluate theories. Because no matter how unlikely, any observation possible would have happened in the entire universe.
Frankly, I don’t see any parallel here.