**Introduction** Fundamental physical constants and cosmological parameters seem incredibly fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life. This appears bafflingly improbable, given the myriad other possibilities. In grappling with this puzzle, philosophers and physicists have invoked the anthropic principle and the idea of observer bias. The anthropic principle suggests that some apparent randomness in cosmology and physics may be influenced by an observer selection effect. A universe that permits the evolution of life must have the right conditions for complexity. Our observations are necessarily biased toward a life-permitting universe. This essay will explain the anthropic principle and observer bias, discussing the implications for interpreting randomness in cosmology. **The Role of the Observer in Cosmology** According to the anthropic principle, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe seemingly tailor-made for life. If fundamental constants were unsuitable for life, there would be no conscious observers like us around to notice it. As physicist John Barrow argues, “The universe cannot be uniquely determined by physics alone, but is also shaped by how it is perceived.” The point is that in any universe complex enough for conscious life and observation, the constants must fall within the narrow range compatible with that possibility. Other hypothetical universes with different random constants may exist in a vast multiverse, but we necessarily observe the rare life-friendly cosmos. This form of observer bias means we are limited to the vantage point of our evolved complexity. We cannot run controlled experiments on a universe without observers. As with any survivorship bias, we only get to view the path that led to us, and not the many other potential cosmic paths that didn’t. **Implications for Perceived Randomness** Some take the anthropic principle as evidence that constants like the gravitational constant cannot be random, but must be precisely tuned to produce life. However, most physicists maintain the constants could still be the result of pure chance. We simply happen to inhabit one of the rare universes where the dice rolled favorably. Ultimately, the anthropic principle and observer bias do not definitively settle cosmic questions of chance, purpose, and design. But they do foreground how observations of apparent randomness depend vitally on the nature of the observer. We must account for selection effects arising from our existence in parsing randomness. The precise mixture of order and randomness behind cosmic evolution remains an open question, but one conditioned by the necessity of a life-permitting universe. **Conclusion** The anthropic principle has important implications for philosophical debates about chance, randomness and purpose in cosmology. While not conclusively proving one metaphysical perspective over another, the anthropic principle underscores how concepts of randomness are shaped by the necessary conditions for conscious observation. Our very existence provides an observational bias toward universes apparently conducive to life. Furthermore, as with any survivorship bias, we only get to view the universe from the privileged vantage point of having already evolved within it. This is akin to a “rearview mirror effect” – we only see the path that led to us, and not the many other potential paths that didn’t. Most hypothetical universes will go unobserved because they do not support conscious life. So the precise mixture of randomness and order that brings about life-permitting universes remains an open question at the intersection of philosophy and physics. Anthropic reasoning and survivorship bias remind us that our observations of an orderly universe may be conditioned by the fact we exist here to observe it.