if for instance the gravitational constant differed by half of one percent, life as we know it would be impossible
I doubt that very much.
Only know what I read somewhere
But even if it was true, more generally, that cosmological constants are conducive to the apparition of life on our planet,
Sure looks that way anyhow
it doesn't mean anything.
That's really the big q needing to be addressed. If progress of the Universe from the black blob undergoing the Big Bang culminating in the physics of the present day is a form of evolution (which seems logical), what is it about the humanoid that makes his part so very important
On one hand then we have the theist supposing that the Whole Shebang would be pointless without us to the utter skeptic (Oliver?) who maintains it's all a big meaningless accident
If some of these constants had been different (or perhaps "in other universes where they are different"),
I suppose that's an issue we ought to address. However, it seems unlikely, according to the practical observation that the less evidence for a phenom, the less likely it is, where no evidence at all is almost a disproof
either nobody would be asking the question,
Seems most likely
or some rather different life form would be asking itself the question...
Assuming the rules remain pretty much the same, what makes me doubt the "alternate life-form theory" is the extremely primitive form of life deprived of light, oxygen, etc
Of course one might posit an infinite number of simultaneous Universes varying from one another by a single quantum unit (whatever that means) but again, no evidence of any sort