I think there's something paradoxical in a physticist's theory of everything. Insead, methodologically naturalistic explanations seem to be endless, as I argue elsewhere (first link below). The scientist explains something by positing some further elements, forces, or initial conditions. And then she must explain those things that lie deeper in the analysis, and so on to infinity or until she reaches something that's not subject to such naturalization or objectification.
This may be only tangentially related to what you're saying about "unity" and so forth. But I also take a more deflationary view of mathematics (links below), so I view this discource of yours as somewhat metaphorical at best. I mean, you could also argue for a Pythagorean ontology. Are you familiar with Max Tegmark? Have a look at the video below.
