English is unique in that "come" and "go" do not relate as much to direction of travel as your perspective when you speak. Perspective is where you imagine you are when you are speaking. For example, suppose I'm talking to my friend on the phone:
I am leaving right now to come to your party.
I'm not at my friend's party, but I visualize that I am at the party with my friend. In a similar way:
Would you like to come to my friend's party with me?
Neither of us are at the party, but by using "come" instead of "go" it's an invitation that visualizes us both at the party. Of course I could also ask:
Would you like to go to my friend's party with me?
This is perfectly grammatical. The only difference is my perspective of us, here, moving toward the party together.
So the answer is all of your sentences are correct, and most of the time it doesn't really matter where I am when I say them. "I come to work", "I go to work" -- either way I don't have to be at home or at work to say these. It all depends on my perspective, whether I imagine myself already at home or already at work.
Keep in mind you have to use the perspective that makes sense in context. If my friend and I are thinking of a trip to Europe, I would say
Let's go to Europe.
and not
Let's come to Europe
However if I was talking to my friend in Europe I might say,
I want to come there to see you!
The difference is that, in the first case, there is no one in Europe whose perspective I relate to. In the second case I can put myself in my friend's shoes and see myself coming toward her. However, I can ask my friend in the US:
Do you want to come with me to Europe?
because I visualize that person with me as we move toward a location -- she's "coming along" with me.
It may sound confusing at first, but it does make sense once you get used to it.
Best Answer
Consider there's your colleague named Jack. One bad day, he has been sacked. In this context, I'll try to answer your questions.
You asked the differences. Here are they.
Either someone told you or you got this information from somewhere (maybe, an email or something for example). Point to note: You did not do any effort to know this piece of news.
This is quite similar to the above one but when you inform someone, it's official and when you come to know something, it could be through gossip, general talk or things the like. Point to note: You may or may not do any effort for this. This may come as your efforts, coincidence (employees were talking about it and suddenly you came) or luck. In other words, say, you enter into gossip that has been already going on and there, the topic of Jack's sacking comes (with no effort, you came to know this news) or you toss a topic of current sacking in the company and someone tells you that Jack has been sacked (you made some efforts to know who all are been sacked).
And lastly,
This means Jack's sacking is probably declared and well known. You know or realize this news (sense #1, sense #2 is also possible but then it'll be in a different context) and you are pretty well aware of it. In this context, being aware means the person who's talking to you is probably confirmed that Jack's sacking is not a secret to you anymore. And again, you are aware of it.
Now the second question:
No, they are not interchangeable all the time.
You cannot be aware of something unless that something is being informed to you. Check the example there:
"I don't think people are really aware of just how much it costs."
True, you have to inform them to make them aware.Likewise, if you come to know something, it does not necessarily mean that someone informed you. The knowledge of that something has come to you because of your efforts, luck or coincidence.
Hope this helps.