That’s the reason we’ll confine ourselves to physics.
More evidence that physicists make the best liars.
https://medium.com/liecatcher/physicists-are-the-best-liars-c8e9ccfcf6b4
It was Descartes in the early 1500s, a generation before Newton, who argued what was later called the Anthropic Principle. He looked at natural philosophy and the laws of nature more broadly. He said that anywhere we look with scientific method (direct observation that can be replicated among us) we will see MORE order in nature. This not only proves we exist (as you note), and proves nature exists (which he defines as God), but this also has a specific quirk, having to do with us as the observer.
This "quirk" is a self-evident truth, a clearly true premise, that asserts the limitation on human intelligence, and, as we know today, any animal intelligence we know.
That 'quirk' is that we find scientific order in many things. Not just what physicists care to think about.
This includes order in how we think, remember, our human natural language, and so forth. While physicists would not regard that as "true science." of course, since they are the best liars, it is true by direct observation. Using empirical science to comprehend and predict the human mind (our thinking) will see order that we did not see before, always.
This is actually a limitation on our intelligence to actually perceive how the nature (reality) really works, because it says our intelligence (the way our brains work) is not capable of seeing all the Perfection of God (all the laws of nature that actually exist at one time). We now know why this right, but it is through the study of natural language.
Natural language is itself something we can observe. It is not composed of atoms and quarks, but it is also composed on things we can scientifically observe and measure...and we have been doing that, scientifically, through the art of careful observation, for as many thousands of years as we have been doing the narrow interests of physicists.
You just make better liars but, as Descartes said, "I think therefore I am". Guess which is more important to understand scientifically, the "I think" or the "I am"? Particularly to our survival.
You also do not mention that an "anthropic" principle does assume nature exists. Descartes also discusses where it is possible that God (Nature) is tricking us into seeing these measurements and the communications among ourselves. He rejects that by saying there is no science that shows an "anthropomorphic" God in Nature. As he said, very importantly to your argument, "Nature is God, and God does not lie". People lie. It is fundamental to how our brains compute. The order of nature (God) is not an anthropomorphic order but it is anthropic.
Here is how we think. And unlike the claims of many many physicists, it is not like the artificial computers we use to compute physics.
https://medium.com/liecatcher/how-your-brain-computes-41ebe7428ff9
Real science is not restricted to physics. I know you would like us to think otherwise. But Descartes had your number on this one, Mr. Very Good Liar. Indeed, his reliance for truth was on Geometry. Read him (please, just his "Method")
