You have asked many questions, so let me try to answer them one by one.
First, what is a dead body? It is the five elements of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, and Ether. These elements are ‘descriptions’ of experience. They are objective like a book. In the living body there is also experience of these meanings, but not in the dead body. We can distinguish these two things as ‘words’ and ‘meanings’. The dead body is words, living body is words and meanings.
The meaning comes in five forms — sensationalization (senses), contextualization (mind), universalization (intellect), personalization (ego), and idealization (mahattattva or chitta). For example, if someone says: “He is a beast”. The first thing is the sensation of sound. Then comes contextualization — i.e. who is “He”? There is also contextualization of whether this is being said in a sports context, or a family context, etc. Then comes universalization — what is the meaning of ‘beast’? The connotation derived previously is used to nuance the denotation. Then comes personalization — do I like this characterization? Or am I offended by this description? Finally, comes idealization, is this something considered ideal behavior by me and others?
A dead body cannot derive all these meanings. Only a living body can do that. That subjective and objective description you are referring to is the personalization of meaning.
As far as prana is concerned, it is used to create an object, for a certain purpose, to be used in certain contexts. But once that is done, prana is no longer there. Prana is the force by which you did things, and the force gets embedded in the object as the process by which things were done, but force creates a process, but the process is not the force. So, prana is not present in the object.
You can distinguish between the force that pushes an object and the path the object takes. Prana is the force that pushes and creates things. But after a thing has been created, the force has ended. However, by analyzing the object, you can still uncover the path by which it was created. This uncovering is always flawed because there are many paths through which a thing could be created. This is the problem with the study of history — you can see some outcomes, but how do you know the order in which things were done to produce an outcome? Did the carpenter of a table make the legs before the top, or vice versa? Which leg did he bolt first?
You just assume that things were done through the shortest path or the easiest and simplest path, but that is not necessarily true. If you are not an expert, you will write and rewrite some book, and the final form that the book has taken has consumed a lot of prana but you can’t make out whether it reached the final state through many iterations or just the first iteration. So, the ‘effort’ that goes into creating something is not available in the object. You can only guess, and mostly that guess would be inaccurate. Your guess is probably as good as someone else’s guess.
Now comes the question of why some possibilities are more likely than others. A dinosaur is a possibility but you don’t see it. Why? The reason is that between unmanifest and manifest is the third state called ‘about to manifest’. Time converts the unmanifest into ‘about to manifest’. So, the dinosaurs become possible. Then some soul converts the ‘about to manifest’ into the manifest. Then time slowly destroys this manifest state back to the unmanifest state. So, everything possible is not always visible because time is acting on these things. It is not just the choice of the soul, but the choice of God which is the primary actor in manifesting experiences.
Doesn’t God have better things to do? Yes, He does. He takes different forms to do different things. Doesn’t God have better things to do than kill demons? They can be simply vanquished by His energies. But He comes personally to do that. He likes doing it, He wants to do it.