Dear navin,
i attempted the hard job of going through your essay when i knew i hardly even comprehend your abstract. What i find now is that your approach is a kind of basic computational approach. It assumes in a way that the universe got created and evolved basically in a probalistic manner. Entropy then governs its evlotion completely.
However, the nature shows many symmetries too and then there are breakdown of some symmetries in isolated processes. May be yours is a kind of review of the topic chosen with not much of your own study and conclusions.Whatever little i have understood about Cosmology, to me it seems that it bears out the entire Physics from Particle Physics to Condensed matter physics. Nature being natural has to be simple, as per my imagination. What makes it complex is entirely due to we physicists. That is why i really enjoyed the last sentence of your essay, as it hit me to the inner core. What we humans are doing is just what our minds lead us to after all our sensors have given their respective signals for analysis and scrutiny and whatever background knowledge we have gained through our 'education'and the professional exposure/experience.
Are vwe free enough and unbiased to innovate Physics, rather than just extend it further with our base knowledge? The Big names in olden days Physics were all true innovators but today we mostly seem to extend their works through corrolleries. It may be my wrong impression but that is what is getting reflected in Nobel awards for life-time works or its implications reaching a huge economic or material gains! Physics in the early days was a purer persuit for academic curiousity and fulfilment of self persuits for common uplift of the standards of knowledge. But then xhange is the rule of nature and may be the new times will bring greater satisfaction to the human beings at large.
