Hello Sreenath,
I enjoyed reading your essay for a second time. I find little to disagree with, and that which I disagree with isn't really worth mentioning because it reflects the current consensus accurately. While I said I would comment, I am struggling to find something to say that hasn't already been said, so I present the following as simple cautions in areas where I feel your essay needs extra caution.
1. Gravitation according to General Relativity (GR) is being questioned because it fails to account for observed galactic dynamics. The fact that there is no current alternative forces scientists to postulate the existence of "Dark Matter", but a solution can not be formulated however this matter is distributed, and/or however much or little is imposed. When we add "Dark Energy" to the mix, no solution is possible, at least not until we define the relationship between "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and their relative distribution within and without the galactic framework. The fact that no conclusion is currently possible doesn't mean that (GR) is uncontested. We must remember not to bet the farm on anything that fails to explain objective observations.
2. With regard to quantum superposition and the state of a "quantum entity", I concur with Prof Unnikrishnan when he stresses that the actual state is conditional on the entities local environment, and that in turn to a wider environment, etc, etc, etc. Even though I agree completely, I see it from a slightly different philosophical perspective. I see the "quantum state" as being broken down into the abstract qualities owned by the entity which give it a tendency to particular states (quantities), and this distinct from the quantities demanded by the entities environment. When we translate this to the (it/bit, 1/0, true/false) context, the inviolable abstract qualities are the entities rock, i.e. its conceptual self, then we have its non-secret open responses to measurement which are limited. The meat in this sandwich, so to speak, are the entities secret inclinations (superposed attributes) which contribute to one or other open response according to the entities inherent predisposition, the demands of its environment, and more especially measurements permitted by the environment. Those working on quantum computing have bet someone else's farm on the possibility that there are an infinite number of secret states which can be used to not only store vast amounts of information in computer memory registers, but through entanglement of qubits solve problems that current computer technology struggles with. But the "quantum" being "discrete", and its possible states being "continuous", seems like something made up with little justification and little or no possibility of verification. Moreover, this possibility of infinite information carrying capacity is in direct contradiction to the premise that evolution is an evolution in information carrying capacity. I agree with you that the complexity of consciousness evolves with an increase in information carrying capacity. I also believe there must be an à priori template for consciousness if there is to be an evolution in consciousness and its intelligent behavior.
Thank you for your essay, I rate it highly.
Zoran.
