By analogy, in order to accept the principle of freedom, one needs reasons provided by testable consequences and by phenomena that don't go without the principle. Maybe there are some, but the paper did not discuss these. By the same token, he could have said it's a Universe supportive of mathematical psychology. I happen to be a professor but that could be otherwise. To take the principle of freedom as a necessary truth is ungrounded on account of the evidence presented.
Necessity is the key problem here.
In this sense, even the anthropic principle itself fails to qualify for Lefebvre's treatment. It is the nongenericity of our world that makes it so easy for many people to get from the anthropic principle to God or to the belief that we are lucky guys who won this Universe in a lottery. There are degrees of necessity. Most utterances rank very low on this scale. Even if the principle of freedom was accepted, or replaced by quantum mechanics, or by something else we are ready to accept, it would not pass as a necessary truth.