As great a physicist as Planck was, I am not sure he is the first and last absolute authority on the nature of consciousness, so your appeal to authority falls flat IMHO.

As to your main argument, I see no reason to assume that a life form couldn't evolve that possessed the ability to create models of the universe and, in effect do science, without actually being conscious.

You seem to be arguing that because humans do science, and humans are conscious, than consciousness must be required to do science. But I don't see how that follows.

So your point 5, that physics is only defined relative to our experiences, seems unfounded.