I only interpret the “Goldilocks” and “Fine Tuning” arguments by non-religiously intended scientists to refer to the concept of suitable environments that Natural Selection uses to explain how some organisms survive when they match an environment that enables them to survive to reproduction. As to the perception that there are unique constants that are on a continuum of possible arbitrary values, although it could be possible, they are unnecessary. I have a theory that I hope to present soon that will show that varying constants are not necessary and reduce to simpler concepts than presented before. I am also able to prove definitively that there are in fact infinite universes. But the ones that work, will operate always on the same minimal concepts.
I’ll give you a hint though: Imagine an absolute empty space. (This is just a practice) Now let’s say that you were some kind of God and wanted to begin the process of reality by placing a something in it…say, a spherical essence that differs somehow from the empty space. What size would it be? Obviously, it doesn’t matter what ‘size’ because any arbitrary size has no other thing to compare it to. So then you label this thingy, “matter.” Now, you make another “matter” to go with it in this universe. Is it necessary to give it measure? NO—because you’ve already defined it! It and every “matter” is an absolute unit in and of itself.
If you kind of follow this at least a little, then you may begin to see that this thingy may appear to be constant with respect to all others in some contingent way. But it is illusive. There is no other alternatives once you define the first concept. That is, the sizes, say of all electrons, for example is not a contingent fact. It would be the same everywhere it is used in every universe.
