No FT doesn't mean tweaking
Ft simply means that the life permitting values are narrow. ..... There is no Tunning in the literal sense of the word
Even if that claim of yours is true it is only a fancy argument from ignorance. It is based upon a logical fallacy.
There are at least two answers to it. One is that those may be all "physical necessity". There is no valid reason to assume that they are not. I gave you Kepler's constants as what looked like fine tuned numbers were not. The fact that they were very simple numbers does not make a difference. Except that it may indicate that the solution is relatively simple. Of course they were not at all 'simple" before Kepler did his work. He pulled out a relationship that indicated an answer existed. The raw data did not show that at all.
Then there is Sean Carroll and the rate of expansion of the universe. One of the large values that you set so much stock on. It is "physical necessity". It is not fine tuned.
You did not seem to read or understand the philosophical article that I linked for you, perhaps the Wiki article would help, let me give you a few nice quotes from it as well:
en.wikipedia.org
"The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that it is not yet known how many independent physical constants there are. The
standard model of particle physics has 25 freely adjustable parameters and
general relativity has one more, the
cosmological constant, which is
known to be nonzero but profoundly small in value. Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of
quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity.
[17]"
Interesting. "freely adjustable" seems to contradict "no tuning'. Of course it could be as you called it "physical necessity" which would mean that there was no tuning for that variable. And in fact, there may be more physical necessity than you think:
"Some explanations of fine-tuning are
naturalistic.
[26] First, the fine-tuning might be an illusion: more fundamental physics may explain the apparent fine-tuning in physical parameters in our current understanding by constraining the values those parameters are likely to take. As
Lawrence Krauss put it, "certain quantities have seemed inexplicable and fine-tuned, and once we understand them, they don't seem to be so fine-tuned. We have to have some historical perspective."
[22] Some argue it is possible that a final fundamental
theory of everything will explain the underlying causes of the apparent fine-tuning in every parameter.
[27][22]"
Once again, all those values may be understood some day. As was shown by Sean Carroll. Scientists are nowhere near solving all of them, but that never means that they will not be solved.
And another possible answer is the Multiverse. That to me is highly speculative, but that is because I am not a physicist, but a multiverse could easily solve the supposed problems. It does not appear to be any more unlikely than proposing a "designer". You should not let big numbers scare you. If they did the big numbers of places where life cannot exist in our universe should scare you.