Anyway, the famed physicist Stephen Hawkins is quoted: There are other, purely hypothetical, reasons to believe that an ultimate theory of everything might not be possible. For instance, there is Godel's theorem, which says that you cannot formulate a finite system of axioms to prove every result in mathematics. A physical theory is a mathematical model, so if there are mathematical results that cannot be proved, there are physical problems that cannot be solved. But the real relevance of Godel's theorem is its connection to the fact that inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves. One of the most famous of these is the assertion "This statement is false". If the statement is true, then according to the statement itself, the statement is false. But if the statement is false, then the statement must be true.

*Since we are not angels who view the universe from the outside, we -- and our theories-- are both part of the universe we are describing, and hence our theories are also self-referencing. And so one might expect that they, too, are either inconsistent or incomplete*. (Italics mine)

Somewhere on The Zoo Fence, as regards a definition or explanation of God and the nature of the Universe and of ourselves, we say something like: If it'll fit into your mind, it's too small!

The separative, egoic mind, being a finite tool, is designed to function in a finite universe, which it does reasonably well. But it can't reach beyond its own limitations. Much less can it describe or explain beyond its own limitations.

So, inevitably, as Hawkins suggests, any "ultimate theory of everything" that the mind can develop, grasp, understand, even articulate, must fail. At TZF, we say, There is no God but God, and God is all there is (or, far more dangerously, there is no I but I, and I am all there is); but even that can't be more than words to the mind, and as regards the parenthetical version, particularly dangerous words at that!