Thanks, So for the first issue you claim her premise that cosmologists arbitrarily prefer values "near" to 1 is incorrect. Ok, I have no idea. I guess that wou

Thanks, So for the first issue you claim her premise that cosmologists arbitrarily prefer values "near" to 1 is incorrect. Ok, I have no idea. I guess that would make for a good review article or even just some science journalism where all the bigshots get asked. For the second issue you seem to be in agreement with her for the most part: >"What happens if you ignore this and go with the belief that the likely initial value for the curvature density should be about 1? Well, then you do have a problem indeed, because that’s incompatible with data to a high level of significance. Inflation then “solves” this supposed problem by taking the initial value and shrinking it by, I dunno, 100 or so orders of magnitude. This has the consequence that if you start with something of order 1 and add inflation, the result today is compatible with observation. But of course if you start with some very large value, say 1060, then the result will still be incompatible with data. That is, you really need the assumption that the initial values are likely to be of order 1. Or, to put it differently, you are not allowed to ask why the initial value was not larger than some other number." She is claiming that the inflation theory presupposes the initial value should be near 1, this value is not derived from anywhere.