The concern is that "origins of life" is a distinct issue from "origins of multicellularity". You rightly point out that origins of life per se is of more cosmo

The concern is that "origins of life" is a distinct issue from "origins of multicellularity". You rightly point out that origins of life per se is of more cosmological/physical significance, whereas multicellularity is primarily (exo-)biological in nature. However I vehemently disagree that multicellularity is the "only interesting kind of life". We don't even know yet if life of computational origin exists so as to be able to call it life per se. We don't know lots of things. It's just hubris to act as if we have enough information to make such strong claims.