Question about the anthropic principle

Hello, Your Honor,

I'm reading your book now, and a question arose in my mind about your reference to the anthropic principle, especially at the point where you refer to the laws of physics.
It follows from your words that the chance of life forming is absolutely zero given the laws of physics – and furthermore, any small change in the laws of physics completely eliminates the possibility of life.
To say – here we are, does not at all eliminate the question – after all, this is the source of the question that requires explanation.

So far so good.

The problem with this seems to me to be that you assume that "life" exists only in the way we know it – that is, replicating DNA helices, etc. Life in this specific sense is indeed a statistically insignificant phenomenon. But it is conceivable, at least theoretically, that some other combination of molecules would also create "life", but in a different sense from the one we know. This only gets worse when you move on to systems in which other laws operate – if all the laws are different, there is no reason to assume that life would appear in the way we know it. In this sense, the anthropic principle seems to me to be completely justified: you start from something that exists, and ask about it, and that's how you skew the statistics – but in fact there are countless other possibilities that you can count.

Isn't that so?

I hope I was able to clarify.