Response Paper

The two videos are very interesting for me. The topic of the big bang and that the universe
was caused by something powerful is not very new to me. In the first video, it talked mainly about
the big bang.

he idea that naturalness will explain fine tuning was brought into question by Nima Arkani-
Hamed, a theoretical physicist, in his talk "Why is there a Macroscopic Universe?", a lecture
from the mini-series "Multiverse & Fine Tuning" from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project, a
University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration 2013. In it he describes how naturalness has
usually provided a solution to problems in physics; and that it had usually done so earlier than
expected. However, in addressing the problem of the cosmological constant, naturalness has
failed to provide an explanation though it would have been expected to have done so a long
time ago.
The necessity of fine-tuning leads to various problems that do not show that the theories are
incorrect, in the sense of falsifying observations, but nevertheless suggest that a piece of the
story is missing. For example, the cosmological constant problem (why is the cosmological
constant so small?); the hierarchy problem; and the strong CP problem, among others.

An example of a fine-tuning problem considered by the scientific community to have a plausible

"natural" solution is the cosmological flatness problem, which is solved if inflationary theory is
correct: inflation forces the universe to become very flat, answering the question of why the
universe is today observed to be flat to such a high degree.[citation needed]

Although fine-tuning was traditionally measured by ad hoc fine-tuning measures, such as the
Barbieri-Giudice-Ellis measure,[3] over the past decade many scientists[4][5][6][7][8] recognized that
fine-tuning arguments were a specific application of Bayesian statistics.