I really do like the idea of a limit to computation, I think the Anthropic princ

http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/12/27/video-friday-brainfood-seth-lloyd-on-the-universe-as-quantum-computer/While I really do like the idea of a limit to computation, I think the Anthropic principle, strong especially, but weak as well, is religion, not science. I don’t yet see any evidence that measurement or observability is always within our grasp, nor that determinism is sufficient that deduction can serve to render the unobservable predictable, other than for general rules. It’s not that it isn’t, it’s that I don’t yet grasp why it’s necessary, and unless it’s necessary, such statements are far closer in structure to prior anthropocentric ideas than those that have disabused anthropocentric ideas. So I can’t really state it. I would argue possibly instead, that any mind capable of introspection, which can make use of sufficient instrumentation to detect causal relations, can reduce those causal relations to analogies to experience. This basically argues that intelligence and instrumentalism are capable of perceiving any reasonably deterministic order. I am extremely suspicious of the argument that the rules of the universe are fungible. And it appears instead, that we fail to understand the properties of the universe and as such our model will suit nearly any math we throw at it. For this reason, we know our model is wrong. I suspect that because our model is wrong, so is the anthropic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle