Fine Tuning Debunked

[Nihilist Virus]

The Fine Tuning Argument has bothered me for a long time because it has always seemed to be the one good argument theists have. Most theistic arguments are very poor. The Watchmaker Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for instance, can be refuted as a footnote. The Fine Tuning Argument, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult for me to see.

To start, consider the Ideal Gas Law from Chemistry:

PV=nRT

This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.
This section is invalid as pointed out in comments below.

Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us.

So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics. If we have a constant that is applicable in some scenarios but not in others, then, as far as we can tell, the constant is finely tuned by humans. It will not be until we find a constant that is applicable in all scenarios that we can even have a discussion on this matter.

Let me also explain, as far as I understand things, why some cosmologists apparently attest to fine tuning. Theists have quoted atheist cosmologists as being sympathetic to fine tuning, and for the moment I will assume that the theist is both correct and honest in such citations. My understanding is that cosmologists run simulations of the early universe and change the values of certain constants by small degrees, only to witness disaster. But this result would have been predicted by what I'm saying: if the cosmologists finely tuned constants to make their equations work, then obviously there will be problems if they alter those constants. Perhaps if we got someone on here who knew what they were talking about, they might tell us that the very point of early-universe simulations is for astro-physicists to finely tune their constants.

And simulating the Big Bang is already a fool's errand for a ton of reasons. First, there may exist some particle which we will never be able to create in a particle accelerator because it requires more condensed energy than even exists in our current Hubble Sphere; and if this speculative particle played a significant role in the outcome of the Big Bang, we will never be able to fully model the Big Bang. Second, and most obviously, the Big Bang involved a Relativistic amount of mass (all mass in the universe) and therefore Relativity cannot be ignored, and yet the Big Bang occurred on the smallest scale possible and therefore quantum mechanics cannot be ignored; unfortunately, we currently lack the language to make these two theories compatible with one another. It is fundamentally impossible for us to accurately model the Big Bang at this point. Fine Tuning is something we can only claim once we actually know everything that is relevant.

In conclusion, I'll summarize via a logical syllogism:

1.) If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.

Footnote

Spoiler

The Watchmaker Argument Debunked

1.) We find a watch in the forest, and, by contrasting it with the forest, we conclude that the watch is designed.
2.) This means we are starting with the assumption that the forest is not designed.
3.) The argument then attempts to conclude that nature is designed.
4.) Since the argument is not a proof by contradiction, the argument is fatally flawed.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked

1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.

 

[Tolworth John]

You are going to have to argue with more than just Christians as scientist also say the universe is fine tuned see:-
Stephen Hawking said, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” And elsewhere: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” [Brief History of Time, p. 125. Second quote is in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 134.]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are going to have to argue with more than just Christians as scientist also say the universe is fine tuned see:-
Stephen Hawking said, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” And elsewhere: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” [Brief History of Time, p. 125. Second quote is in Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 134.]

Get back to me when you've read my post. Thanks.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Fine Tuning Argument has bothered me for a long time because it has always seemed to be the one good argument theists have. Most theistic arguments are very poor. The Watchmaker Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for instance, can be refuted as a footnote. The Fine Tuning Argument, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult for me to see.

To start, consider the Ideal Gas Law from Chemistry:

PV=nRT

This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.

Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us.

So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics. If we have a constant that is applicable in some scenarios but not in others, then, as far as we can tell, the constant is finely tuned by humans. It will not be until we find a constant that is applicable in all scenarios that we can even have a discussion on this matter.

Let me also explain, as far as I understand things, why some cosmologists apparently attest to fine tuning. Theists have quoted atheist cosmologists as being sympathetic to fine tuning, and for the moment I will assume that the theist is both correct and honest in such citations. My understanding is that cosmologists run simulations of the early universe and change the values of certain constants by small degrees, only to witness disaster. But this result would have been predicted by what I'm saying: if the cosmologists finely tuned constants to make their equations work, then obviously there will be problems if they alter those constants. Perhaps if we got someone on here who knew what they were talking about, they might tell us that the very point of early-universe simulations is for astro-physicists to finely tune their constants.

And simulating the Big Bang is already a fool's errand for a ton of reasons. First, there may exist some particle which we will never be able to create in a particle accelerator because it requires more condensed energy than even exists in our current Hubble Sphere; and if this speculative particle played a significant role in the outcome of the Big Bang, we will never be able to fully model the Big Bang. Second, and most obviously, the Big Bang involved a Relativistic amount of mass (all mass in the universe) and therefore Relativity cannot be ignored, and yet the Big Bang occurred on the smallest scale possible and therefore quantum mechanics cannot be ignored; unfortunately, we currently lack the language to make these two theories compatible with one another. It is fundamentally impossible for us to accurately model the Big Bang at this point. Fine Tuning is something we can only claim once we actually know everything that is relevant.

In conclusion, I'll summarize via a logical syllogism:

1.) If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.

Footnote

Spoiler

The Watchmaker Argument Debunked

1.) We find a watch in the forest, and, by contrasting it with the forest, we conclude that the watch is designed.
2.) This means we are starting with the assumption that the forest is not designed.
3.) The argument then attempts to conclude that nature is designed.
4.) Since the argument is not a proof by contradiction, the argument is fatally flawed.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked

1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.

Now, you're starting to sound like Lee Smolin.

 

[Tolworth John]

If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.

or

Get back to me when you've read my post. Thanks.

I have read your post.
your first premise fails if a physical constant is constant under all conditions.

I am not aware of any one saying that the various constant are anything but constant.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

or


I have read your post.
your first premise fails if a physical constant is constant under all conditions.

I am not aware of any one saying that the various constant are anything but constant.

In the OP I give two explicit examples of physical constants that are not applicable in all situations. Please read what I have to say before responding. This is now the second time I've asked you to do this.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Hi. Good post. I'm not following your argument though, but I'm not a physicist.

To start, consider the Ideal Gas Law from Chemistry:

PV=nRT

This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.

How exactly is R fine tuned buy us? It's just an expression of a relationship between variables we observe in nature. If it arises out our observation of nature then how can it be fine tuned by us? We didn't define it arbitrarily did we?

Also, why does it matter if it's not valid in all cases in the cosmos? It's still intrinsic to specific conditions in the cosmos.

Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us

Well every constant is just a number to make the equations work. But nature is governed by laws and behaves consistently, so constants tell us something about the relationships of things in nature. Equations are just a language to describe those relationships. Even if there are situations where our equations don't apply, the situations where they do apply are no less valid.

So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics.

Are you talking quantum entanglement? As far as I understand nothing in QM technically violates GR. My knowledge on this topic is rather limited though.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked

1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.

(Just a side note, if there are other dimensions then (1) is false).

 

[Everybodyknows]

(Just a side note, if there are other dimensions then (1) is false).

What do you mean by extra dimensions? Extra spacial dimensions? These would still be governed by the same time dimension we experience?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

What do you mean by extra dimensions? Extra spacial dimensions? These would still be governed by the same time dimension we experience?

Sorry, I should have clarified. If there is some dimension that exists outside of ours such as a different universe, or a spiritual dimension where God resides; if the cause came from outside of this place, then space-time as we know it can begin but still be an effect.

If we are inside a computer program, all we know is time began when our program started running. We know nothing of "before" this because there was no "before" from our perspective. Whatever it is that is outside of this computer program and started the program running is what I mean by "extra dimensions".

 

[hedrick]

I am skeptical of the fine-tuning argument. But I don't think the OP comes close enough to making sense that I can even argue against it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, the Ideal Gas Law is not at all as you describe it.

Firstly, what we actually have are three Perfect Gas Laws:

1. Boyle's Law that Pressure is inversely proportional to Volume at constant temperature.

2. Charles' Law that volume varies directly in proportion to temperature at a constant Pressure.

3. Third Gas Law that at constant Volume, Pressure varies directly in proportion to temperature.

These were determined experimentally, but no gas in existence actually perfectly fits them. That is why they are termed Perfect Gas Laws. We invented a theoretical 'Perfect Gas' that conforms perfectly to the rough tendencies we noticed in Nature. We then transformed relations into equations by adding a constant which was thus equated to the constants of the other Perfect Gas Laws to create the Ideal Gas Law for a mole of gas. The constant wasn't 'painstakingly refined', but a derived value for a theoretical abstract termed a 'Perfect Gas'; which simply does not exist.

Your OP seems a bit confused from then on out anyway, as the Fine Tuning argument is usually related to actual findings being too ideal for our universe to exist, rather than related to our invented constants. I don't think it a exceptionally strong argument myself though, as it is a bit of a catch-22 relationship with our observations.

EDIT: I am just adding the OP in its original form here, as NV said he might edit it, so as to preserve the continuity of the argument.

The Fine Tuning Argument has bothered me for a long time because it has always seemed to be the one good argument theists have. Most theistic arguments are very poor. The Watchmaker Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for instance, can be refuted as a footnote. The Fine Tuning Argument, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult for me to see.

To start, consider the Ideal Gas Law from Chemistry:

PV=nRT

This is an equation which relates pressure, volume, number of particles, and temperature. The term R is a constant which makes the equation true. Is R a fine-tuned constant? Yes. It is finely tuned by us. Humanity painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant, so that future chemists could derive, say, temperature when given the other three variables. But R is absolutely not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; if it were, we would expect this equation to be valid, say, within the core of the sun.

Similarly, Newton's gravitational constant G is just a number we insert into gravitational equations in order to make them true, and to make predictions. But G will not work in all situations. Obviously, G does not apply inside a black hole. G is not a finely tuned variable intrinsic to the cosmos; G is finely tuned by us.

So we need to find a constant that is applicable in all possible scenarios. Not even c seems to qualify, given our knowledge of quantum mechanics. If we have a constant that is applicable in some scenarios but not in others, then, as far as we can tell, the constant is finely tuned by humans. It will not be until we find a constant that is applicable in all scenarios that we can even have a discussion on this matter.

Let me also explain, as far as I understand things, why some cosmologists apparently attest to fine tuning. Theists have quoted atheist cosmologists as being sympathetic to fine tuning, and for the moment I will assume that the theist is both correct and honest in such citations. My understanding is that cosmologists run simulations of the early universe and change the values of certain constants by small degrees, only to witness disaster. But this result would have been predicted by what I'm saying: if the cosmologists finely tuned constants to make their equations work, then obviously there will be problems if they alter those constants. Perhaps if we got someone on here who knew what they were talking about, they might tell us that the very point of early-universe simulations is for astro-physicists to finely tune their constants.

And simulating the Big Bang is already a fool's errand for a ton of reasons. First, there may exist some particle which we will never be able to create in a particle accelerator because it requires more condensed energy than even exists in our current Hubble Sphere; and if this speculative particle played a significant role in the outcome of the Big Bang, we will never be able to fully model the Big Bang. Second, and most obviously, the Big Bang involved a Relativistic amount of mass (all mass in the universe) and therefore Relativity cannot be ignored, and yet the Big Bang occurred on the smallest scale possible and therefore quantum mechanics cannot be ignored; unfortunately, we currently lack the language to make these two theories compatible with one another. It is fundamentally impossible for us to accurately model the Big Bang at this point. Fine Tuning is something we can only claim once we actually know everything that is relevant.

In conclusion, I'll summarize via a logical syllogism:

1.) If a physical constant is applicable under some conditions but not under others, then the constant is man-made and is not intrinsic to the universe.
2.) There is no known physical constant that is applicable under all conditions.
3.) By 2), there is no known physical constant that is intrinsic to the universe.
4.) By 3), there is no known physical constant that is finely tuned.

Footnote

Spoiler

The Watchmaker Argument Debunked

1.) We find a watch in the forest, and, by contrasting it with the forest, we conclude that the watch is designed.
2.) This means we are starting with the assumption that the forest is not designed.
3.) The argument then attempts to conclude that nature is designed.
4.) Since the argument is not a proof by contradiction, the argument is fatally flawed.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked

1.) As causality is defined, a cause and an effect must be separated by some amount of time.
2.) The Big Bang was the first moment of time and was not preceded by anything.
3.) By 2.), the cause for the Big Bang could not have been before the Big Bang.
4.) It is commonly agreed that the cause for the Big Bang did not occur after the Big Bang (retrocausality).
5.) There could not have been a cause for the Big Bang.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The Fine Tuning Argument has bothered me for a long time because it has always seemed to be the one good argument theists have

Why does a good argument bother you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

(Just a side note, if there are other dimensions then (1) is false).

There would need to be another form of causality completely alien to us for (1) to be wrong.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi. Good post. I'm not following your argument though, but I'm not a physicist.

How exactly is R fine tuned buy us? It's just an expression of a relationship between variables we observe in nature. If it arises out our observation of nature then how can it be fine tuned by us? We didn't define it arbitrarily did we?

If the relationship between pressure, volume, temperature, and number of particles is not constant, then there is no finely tuned constant in that regard. That's all I'm saying.

Also, why does it matter if it's not valid in all cases in the cosmos? It's still intrinsic to specific conditions in the cosmos.

Are you saying that the laws of physics vary depending on the conditions of a system?

Well every constant is just a number to make the equations work. But nature is governed by laws and behaves consistently, so constants tell us something about the relationships of things in nature. Equations are just a language to describe those relationships. Even if there are situations where our equations don't apply, the situations where they do apply are no less valid.

Seems to contradict your previous speculation about the laws of physics varying. I'm confused as to what your point is.

Are you talking quantum entanglement? As far as I understand nothing in QM technically violates GR. My knowledge on this topic is rather limited though.

I'm talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Why does a good argument bother you?

Clearly it never was a good argument. When I thought it was, it bothered me because it was the one exception in an otherwise completely dominated domain of good atheist arguments versus poor theistic arguments.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am skeptical of the fine-tuning argument. But I don't think the OP comes close enough to making sense that I can even argue against it.

Where could I have been more clear?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

There would need to be another form of causality completely alien to us for (1) to be wrong.

All I'm saying is, from a naturalistic perspective where the only thing that exists is the universe itself, the KCA fails. But when we consider the option of our universe coming into existence from another dimension completely outside of ours then then the KCA works fine. To put it as simply as I can, either the universe came from nothing (impossible), has always existed (quantum fluctuations), or from another dimension which looks something like this:

Cause: Dimension 1 (D1) --> Effect: Dimension 2 (D2).

D2 comes into existence as an effect only, so within D2 there is no cause, only effect. Hence space-time itself begins without a D2-cause. Anyway, this is all for another thread I suppose... I'm pushing it on a tangent...

As for the physical constants, I'm wondering if it will be a "God of the gaps" argument that will be explained at some point in the future... but as for the beginning of the universe, there will be no good explanation if it remains within D2 because every beginning point needs further explanation... I can't see how it will ever be solved...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, the Ideal Gas Law is not at all as you describe it.

So then why is it that if you Google "Ideal Gas Law" you see pages and pages of "PV=nRT"?

You seem like you just have to disagree with everything so you can assert your opinion and appear to be intelligent. Stop being a contrarian.

Firstly, what we actually have are three Perfect Gas Laws:

1. Boyle's Law that Pressure is inversely proportional to Volume at constant temperature.

2. Charles' Law that volume varies directly in proportion to temperature at a constant Pressure.

3. Third Gas Law that at constant Volume, Pressure varies directly in proportion to temperature.

I've never heard of these, but they seem to be the foundations of the Ideal Gas Law.

These were determined experimentally, but no gas in existence actually perfectly fits them. That is why they are termed Perfect Gas Laws. We invented a theoretical 'Perfect Gas' that conforms perfectly to the rough tendencies we noticed in Nature. We then transformed relations into equations by adding a constant which was thus equated to the constants of the other Perfect Gas Laws to create the Ideal Gas Law for a mole of gas.

That is a great way to phrase it.

The constant wasn't 'painstakingly refined', but a derived value for a theoretical abstract termed a 'Perfect Gas'; which simply does not exist.

It wasn't "painstakingly refined"? So... no experiments or measurements were required? Fascinating. Tell me more.

Your OP seems a bit confused from then on out anyway, as the Fine Tuning argument is usually related to actual findings being too ideal for our universe to exist, rather than related to our invented constants.

Such as?

I don't think it a exceptionally strong argument myself though, as it is a bit of a catch-22 relationship with our observations.

What?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

All I'm saying is, from a naturalistic perspective where the only thing that exists is the universe itself, the KCA fails. But when we consider the option of our universe coming into existence from another dimension completely outside of ours then then the KCA works fine. To put it as simply as I can, either the universe came from nothing (impossible), has always existed (quantum fluctuations), or from another dimension which looks something like this:

Cause: Dimension 1 (D1) --> Effect: Dimension 2 (D2).

D2 comes into existence as an effect only, so within D2 there is no cause, only effect. Hence space-time itself begins without a D2-cause. Anyway, this is all for another thread I suppose... I'm pushing it on a tangent...

As for the physical constants, I'm wondering if it will be a "God of the gaps" argument that will be explained at some point in the future... but as for the beginning of the universe, there will be no good explanation if it remains within D2 because every beginning point needs further explanation... I can't see how it will ever be solved...

Aside from two minor issues I agree entirely.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So then why is it that if you Google "Ideal Gas Law" you see pages and pages of "PV=nRT"?

You got the equation right, you just don't seem to understand it - based on the OP. It is for an hypothetical Perfect Gas that perfectly follows the three Gas Laws. No Gas in existence does this, so no Chemist can derive any variable in real practice of any sort from it. Likewise its constant does not exist in reality. It is therefore a very poor and frankly silly choice for a fine tuning argument.
What it does do, is suggest how real gases should have acted if they were Perfect and with the addition of information such as the vapour point, molecular mass, Reynold's number and flow, etc., we may be able to derive values therefrom with some semblance to reality - even here though, our theory seldom fits how we actually measure gases act.

You seem like you just have to disagree with everything so you can assert your opinion and appear to be intelligent. Stop being a contrarian.

Check my profile. I often agree with people as per my given rates. You just seem to enjoy talking about things of which you seem to know very little, hence requiring correction.

I've never heard of these, but they seem to be the foundations of the Ideal Gas Law.

Don't worry about it. I am an Anaesthetist, and it is not by chance that surgeons call us Gas Monkeys.
These are the actual Gas Laws though, derived from extrapolation of experimental results to a vague principle - even if no gas actually follows it.
The ideal Gas Law is a fudge where these three laws were artificially thrown together and their constants equated - it is therefore not technically a 'scientific law' at all, but a method of application of the actual Laws.

That is a great way to phrase it.

Thank you.

It wasn't "painstakingly refined"? So... no experiments or measurements were required? Fascinating. Tell me more.

Nope. You said we "painstakingly compared measurements to refine this constant". We did nothing of the sort. We compared measurements to derive the principles of the three Perfect Gas Laws. We then invented a hypothetical gas that fits them perfectly and artificially invented a constant to place all three into one equation for a mole of the hypothetical gas. No experiment or measurement went into deriving the value of the constant - experiments were done for the principles of the Perfect Gas Laws, which don't correspond to the actual results of any measurement or experiment, but the constant simply follows a hypothetical combination of them and is determined therefore by convention.

Such as?

Well, the masses of elementary particles such as the Hoyle number of Carbon; or the strengths of fundamental forces like electroweak or strong nuclear; for instance. Our standard model of particle physics and lambda CDM cosmological model has all kinds of fairly arbitrary values that had they been different , which math allows and often would rather have been expected, then the universe as we know it could not exist. I am not going to argue these much though, as there is a lacunae in my knowledge here, so this is my understanding taken on authority from what physicists I have read. As I said, I find Fine Tuning a bit of a catch-22 argument, so...

What?

The values that we obtain by observation are the 'fine tuned' values that would give us that observation. These were utilised to create our physics in the first place, so it stands to reason that values used to derive something would be in accord with what was derived therefrom; and would be in accord with the required values for the observation to have occurred in the first place; and for the Observer to exist.