Dear Sreenath,
Hi,
Your essay is clearly written. I have some comments on some individual passages.
Your essay starts with a nice contrast between classical and quantum physics. However, I find it a bit harsh to say "String Theory, Loop QG and the like, ... lack new and original concepts and hypotheses." Also, your implication that these theories, albeit not yet tested, are untestable, is rather too strong.
You then go on to define information as "the data that our five senses perceive from the environment by communicating or interacting with it". This is a defensible position, although in practice it would make physics rather awkward; definitions in terms of energy exchange and so forth tend to be more practical.
".... had begun on earth for about a billion years, even prior to the existence of simplest form of life, "
I think this mistake (given that life on earth started more like 3.5 billion years ago) was spotted by another comment, so I won't go further into it.
"Given its [life's] enormous complexity of existence (even in its simplest form), no sort of probabilistic explanation based on mathematical physics including QM can account for it and has defied all rational explanations based on physics." The fact that it hasn't yet been done does not imply that it cannot be. The general assumption in modern biology is, in fact, that biology will be able to be theoretically reduced to physics one day.
"...the product of biological evolution and man is said to be at its pinnacle."
No longer the general biological outlook. The pinnacle is occupied by any organism that has managed to survive. Man is at a pinnacle, but so is the cockroach.
„there is no limit to the comprehension power of the human mind just as there is no limit to the horizon of his imagination‟.
The results of the twentieth century outlined some of the limitations of the human (or any) intellect, or, put another way, they restricted the types of questions that it makes sense to ask. So, if humans keep their questions within those bounds, then of course they can get the answers, but alas humans tend to seek answers beyond those bounds.
"Similarly the Reality derived from the axioms, through successive mathematical steps (which are intuitively certain), follows as logical conclusion from the axioms and it too is abstract. So Reality as conclusion is covertly contained in the axioms. In this sense, mathematics just like logic is a tool used by mind to realize Reality and the veracity of the Reality thus derived from the axioms, depends on the veracity of the axioms but not on the kind of mathematics (or logic) used."
This was basically Immanuel Kant's position in "The Critique of Pure Reason", but this position was shot down by the results of Lobachevsky and Bolyai, and the twentieth century continued to shoot it down. It is no longer a defensible position.
Best, David