>>10492003not having any formal system pretty much itself destroys the notion of a ToE.
You would have to treat ToE as a compilation of some equalities/inequalities/statements which do not overlap in a sense that those structures can be used to derive things not within the field they describe.
So, for example, you can describe quite accurately gravity and say you can't reach those statements from QM. In theory, you could describe all phenomena yet not really understand the underlying rules connecting all in one picture.
Imo it is obvious that we can't really do anything about the true rules as math is more like man made language which describes common phenomena (basic logical relations). Although it is impossible to step out of this framework, it doesn't mean that there aren't things absolutely above everything we can fathom.
Existence itself, the existence of rules can be an example of that. Even if you say things like 'space of all possibilities' and 'chaotic emergence', it doesn't mean anything as you need such structures like 'space of possibilities' to exist beforehand.
