I've selected only the parts talking about physics for response.
Actually science tries to explain realities we don't know like Multiverses Simulation theory and Hologram realities. These have other dimensions that are beyond our physics and reality.
1. I think you need to add some commas "Multiverses, Simulation theory, and Hologram realities" as multiverses and simulation theory are not the same thing. (I don't expect that you think they are, but the sentence is confusing as written.)
2. The holographic principle is something that arises from some versions of string theory. Multiverses are a consequence of some versions of inflation. Simulation theory is a fantasy propagated by people who don't understand physics, simulation, or both.
3. Multiverses and the holographic principle are beyond our current physics for the very reason that they come from explorations of physics beyond what is known to explain our current physics as a sub-set of that more comprehensive set.
4. Simulation theory is beyond reality, but it isn't physics, nor does it seem to have any traction in cosmology. It seems largely supported by people who think "wow, what if the whole universe was just a holodeck simulation" while watching TNG high.
We know that reality is more than what science can describe. We can consciously experience colours and be moved by music or the sensation of taste, the agony of pain and our experience is a fact. Science says these come from the physical brain yet the evidence shows the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences.
OK, this is neurobiology, but if you check in with them you will find that your "the brain cannot possibly explain or account for consciousness experiences" statement is most definitely shown by neurobiology. [And physics had demonstrated that nothing outside the currently known physics could be interacting with the brain to create consciousness anyway, because if there was it would have been detected.]
The problem is the stuff science doesn't know about like dark matter, consciousness, the origin of the universe are equated only in material terms.
Nope. Science knows what all of those things are. While you should be aware of consciousness without science and could speculate that the Universe had a beginning without science, dark matter is *only* known because of science -- in particular astronomy.
Dark matter -- we actually know a lot about dark matter. We know how much there is (total mass density). We know how it is distributed. Because we know how clumpy dark matter is we know how hot it is (what the mean kinetic energy is) and thus how massive the particles of DM must be (approximately). For example it couldn't be ordinary neutrinos. We also know that it doesn't interact with light. What we don't know is what particle (or particles) constitute DM. Those particle likely haven't been detected yet as none of the known particles fit the bill.
Consciousness -- certainly science has done some extensive studies of consciousness and what aspects of the physical world affect it, where it can and can't be found, etc. All studies to date indicate that consciousness is a property of living brains and is not found elsewhere.
Origin of the Universe -- we have explored quite far back to when the Universe was very different than today, in fact so far back that what we know about physics starts to breakdown. This is, of course, exactly where those extended "supersets" of physics are needed and most provide little leverage for testing them. It does therefore look rather speculative, but I see no reason to think that any exploration (successful or not) needs to multiply things with the unphysical.
So as Karl Popper said science is ...
Don't really care what Popper said.