Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,
I have read and enjoyed your essay. In this comment I will attempt to link some of your ideas to some of my own.
You state that:
"The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the limitations of brain as a thought machine will help realize the ultimate possibilities in physics."
This is almost identical with my conclusions, although we reach this point by different paths.
You describe "human thought as a physical process, following the laws of this universe itself." and then attempt to analyze the relation between physics and mathematics.
You define: "A human thought is a signal exchanged and saved among neurons in the brain."
I agree with this, and go further to link this physical process to the logic circuitry of the brain, a physically real construction. I do *not* attribute "awareness" to this construction, but to a consciousness 'field' which has the properties, awareness plus volition. In this sense I also agree with you that:
"Whatever be the physiological and chemical processes, the human thought is bound to the nature of the universe."
The "thought" is the physical 'model' in the brain. Awareness of this thought is attributed to the essence of the consciousness field, which, in my essay is considered to be physically real, that is, capable of coupling to the brain processes. As you say: "it has to come down to a basic understanding in form of these brain signals. Humongous amount of experimental data is of no real use unless analyzed for results, and fit into a physical theory."
You then ask: "What is mathematics? A conventional answer is the study of numbers ergo of quantities, measurement, etc." and "The existence of mathematics is not a demand of nature but a need of a scientific mind."
You then look at representation and worry that "Hence 'the first number' cannot be defined absolutely, without defining 'the first operation' and vice-versa." but you then state that "One of the first scientific inventions of the primitive man was counting."
This is true, and, as a Computer Science Engineer, you recognize that one of the simplest constructions based on logic elements is a "counter". Logic and counters can be implemented as silicon, neural, and even protein circuitry. Additionally, there is much proof that many lifeforms and 'higher' animals have the ability to count (and compare).
Counting is not just biologically important, but the essence of Quantum Field Theory is the particle counter or number operator that counts particles by summing over annihilation and creation operations. This theoretical 'counting' should go hand in hand with the experimental counting of the measurement process, showing that both theory and experiment are based in counting. Elsewhere I have shown that, given measurement numbers, there exist pattern recognition principles that begin with clustering operations and then associate 'features' with clusters and so allow one, based on a group of measurement numbers, to create a feature 'map' or feature vector that represents the system being measured. This, in a nutshell, is the reason that mathematics is so applicable to physics, and so well suited to the brain. And this is why, as you state: "The studies of physics and mathematics are an extension of the human mind and its consciousness."
You ask: "Should we ever expect to understand the nature in its entirety? Let us assume that a complete explanation of all the processes in this universe exists."
My essay attempts to define the ultimate limits of understanding based on a model of consciousness. I hope that you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours.
Edwin Eugene Klingman