Hi Sreenath,
Congratulations on an essay that covers such a wide range: physics, QM, biology, mind, and math. All of these disciplines have something to say about the cosmos, and so must be part of our cosmology. Thank you for your ambitious attempt to discuss them all!
Here are some thoughts on what you wrote:
> From the recent success of the theory of GR, in explaining all the known facts connected to gravitation to the predicted accuracy, we can safely say that if any discrepancy is seen between the theory and observation, the observed fact is not related to gravitation (i.e. non-gravitational) and if it is purely gravitational then it must comply with the value predicted by GR.
GR is not successful in predicting galactic rotation curves and many other observed effects at that scale. Modified Newtonian Gravity (MOND) had been a much better fit to observation.
> In the classical world, the Information is directly accessible to our senses; whereas it is not so in the quantum world.
Microscopic objects are not directly accessible to our senses, and neither are many astronomical objects, yet we still may describe them classically. So perhaps you are overstating the point to stress the classical/quantum difference.
> That is the future points in Space and Time need not necessarily follow from the past points; hence future cannot be predicted from the past with any accuracy and consequently Reality in quantum world is only probabilistic in nature as there is no The Reality in it.
This is, perhaps, the conventional view of QM. But there are several hidden variable theories for quaternionic QM that circumvent Bell's Theorem and suggest just such a foundation.
> We can create the logical picture of unseen Reality out of the Information given to us, if it is allowed by the quantum laws; this is also called the Virtual-Reality. We cannot do this in the classical world because the classical Reality is out there to be determined by the classical laws and we have got to conceive it the way it exists.
But we can also model the classical world as a virtual world (meaning it is a simulation running on a deeper reality). This is the idea that I develop in my Software Cosmos essay.
> The idea that the Information of the whole universe can be stored in an area smaller than the size of an atom shows us what power the quantum computer technology has got.
Do you have a reference describing this possibility?
> Without the conception of biosphere as a prerequisite, it would be impossible for us to think of the existence and evolution of Life. Given its 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.
We can trace the origin of life on Earth back billions of years, and of the formation of the chemical prerequisites to life in outer space much further still. For an immense period of time, the matter that goes into life has been developing, along with life forms based on it. But in this dance of Matter and Life, which partner was leading? Was Life molding Matter into forms that it could use, or was Matter just changing and by happenstance becoming useful?
> In higher organisms, the vision of Reality differs from species to species depending on their adaptive power. So the concept of Reality in biology depends up on a number of factors related to environment and so is the relationship between Information and Reality. Environment is the source of Information for biosphere.
I can understand how individual memories come from the Environment. What is the source of instinctual knowledge that an organism is born with? Is this also the Environment (perhaps indirectly)?
> Now we are in a position to frame the basic hypothesis in biology as follows; "The evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind".
Yes, I agree. But which is the conductor of the orchestra? Does Mind direct Life, or does Life direct Mind? Which created which?
> Elegance always contains an element of beauty, and all ideal and elegant equations are time symmetric in nature.
Consider a waterfall, a beauty of nature. Would a mathematical description (via, for example, a hydrodynamical theory of turbulence) have to be time symmetric or can nature change in beautiful chaotic ways that cannot be time-reversed?
> Although Information & Reality (Bit & It) have physical origin, without mind they are in themselves empty and blind. Bit comes from It, but mind can know of It only through Bit.
Mind knows "Bit"s, and through Bits, it comes to know "It"s. I agree with you there. Perhaps the physical reality comes ultimately from Mind, not the other way around.
> QR exists as virtual Reality in the quantum sea before it is found, but BR exists or realized only after it is created by the biosphere at its will.
We can see physical evidence of BR only once there is a physical substrate for Life to animate. But does life exist independently of its physical form? There are many forms of evidence that it does (all of them denied by strict materialists) and if it does, it only means that Matter is not the ground of being; that Life and Mind may be more fundamental.
Hugh