The fine-tuning argument is a species of the argument from design.

First, there are quite a few fundamental constants; and taking Occam's razor onto account, a single universal constant, of which the other constants were mere aspects thereof  would be the best possible 'reduction'; then, the natural response would be to set this universal constant to the value 'one'; and then it is as though there is no constant - for what can be more natural than this value? 

If this is possible, then is there such a thing as a fine-tuning argument?

Though we can't do this, we can to some extent; in the system of [natural units](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units) - the speed of light *c*, plancks constant *h* and Newtons gravitational constant *G* are all set to one; that this is a 'natural' thing to do can be seen by the simplification achieved in an equation from Special Relativity:

>E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m^2.c^4

Which becomes:

>E^2 = p^2 + m^2

Which demonstrates the reappearance of some antique Greek Mathematics - Pythagorases Theorem.

What this suggests is that there is a natural scale of lengths; and taking into account, conjecturally that nothing is continua as such, but fine-grained, atomic or quantised; then we might conjecturally suggest that the natural scale then is the minimal values of such: ie the minimal charge, of which the others are multiples; or the minimal mass and etc, etc.

But then the fine-tuning question disappears; and the question that replaces it is - why is the universe fine-grained or atomic? A better question - physically and philosophically - possibly.

So, does the argument above refute the fine-tuning argument, contradict it or re-orientate it? I would suggest the latter.

And this done without a cornucopia of multiverses being conjured out of wormhole!