Pinku - thanks for your reply. Though to be honest, your ideas were so fragmentary and disjointed it was difficult to understand exactly what point, if any, you were trying to make. And, while I would much prefer to address an overreaching topic, I will instead have to settle for addressing each of your points independently.
To start with, you talk about the “visible” and the “invisible”. As far as I can gather, you’re not actually talking about things which can be seen and things that can’t be seen. But instead are addressing “knowns” and “unknowns.” Or, to be more precise, “knowns” and “ the unknown-unknowns.” Though, what this concept has to do with rest of your remarks, escapes me. Reality exists in and of itself. What we know about reality - or don’t know about reality - doesn’t change what it is.
You made the statement that,
Anything that changes with respect to circumstances is not true reality.
I have absolutely no idea why you would think this. I don’t mean to be rude, but this is probably one of the most absurd statements that I have ever had the misfortune of reading. EVERYTHING in our universe changes in respect to circumstances [1]. Even NOTHING itself changes [2]. If your statement were true, we would live in a completely static universe where nothing ever happens or changes.
Truth can describe how things were, are, and will be. Truth can also describe how and why things change. The one thing that truth doesn’t describe, is things that never change (i.e. absolutes). This is easily demonstrated, If you take a physical law and put in different values (circumstances) you will get different answers. Because physical laws are descriptors of reality [3]. Even the laws themselves are not absolute. They are conditional upon the properties of space time and energy [4].
Quantum Mechanics reveals that space and time have no meaning unless there is a conscious observer.
No, quantum mechanics does NOT reveal that. Because quantum mechanics does not - and cannot - be used to address “meaning” [5]. “Meaning” is a subjective value metric that we assign to things, principles, ideas, etc. “Meaning” is not a scientific proposition.
Meaning ≠ Explanation
Meaning requires purpose. Explanation does not require purpose. Quantum mechanics can only be used to explain things. It cannot be used to assign purpose to things.
Currently physicists take a stand that physical principles really don’t require the concept of time.
This is untrue. Physicists state that how we perceive time MAY be completely wrong. But physical principles still require the use of time [6].
All these prove that even space and time are not really basic properties of the universe; rather, they are products of our own mind.
Okay, once again I don’t mean to be rude, but you are just not sufficiently enlightened to be discussing these topics. You don’t have have a grasp on the most basic fundamentals of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Much less the comprehensive knowledge needed to “prove” anything about “the basic properties of the universe.”
Please don’t take this as a personal attack, but if you want to make claims about science you need to FIRST understand the science at hand. You have a lot of learning to do. And I don’t want to scoff at your ignorance. Rather, I want to arm you intellectually. There are some fantastic books out there written by actual physicists who understand the principles you’re discussing. I would recommend Brian Greene’s book The Elegant Universe for you. It starts with the basics and gradually gets into some of the deeper aspects of physics.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
[2] https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-1302.0568/1302.0568_djvu.txt
[3] http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=Law+of+Nature
[4] http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~friedan/papers/PRL_45_1980_1057.pdf
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
[6] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0512134.pdf