One last thought....
It's like the ancient Buddist parable of the blind men and the elephant. Many variations of the story exist but effectively it goes like this. Each blind man touches a different part of the elephant and describes it, then argue about what the nature of what they are examining. One of the men holding the trunk argues it's some kind of thick snake. Another man touching the ear doesn't know what the other is talking about and thinks it's a fan. Another holding the elephants leg things it's most like a tree. Another blind man holding the tail thinks the one calling it a thick snake has definitely got it wrong because it's obviously a rope. Another holding the tusk says it's smooth hard with a pointed end and argues it's more like some kind of spear.
The moral of this story is the same as I've talked about above. EACH WAS RIGHT, AND EACH WAS WRONG AT THE SAME TIME. The elephant represents the universe, the blindness represents our limited perspective. As I said earlier everyone's perspective contains something fundamentally true at it's core. If you work on seeing that in others and yourself you're finding pieces of the puzzle. You can then start to put them together, but as much as you can start to gain a sort of genuine understanding like you'll have never experienced before, it will also reveal how much more you still don't know and which you sense stretches out more and more further and further before you. That's why there's so many wise old quotes on how the more knowledge we gain the more we realise how ignorant we are.
We'll never be able to look at the universe all at once and see what it "really" looks like because at a certain point it all becomes relative and you can only derive meaning from context. White noise contains all sound frequencies, white light contains all colours, all sound waves are made up of sine waves. It's only meaningful and not a mess to us once we're restricted/blinded from being able to perceive most of it.
We'll never figure out a true "theory of everything", because there'll always be something that doesn't fit our concept of the universe. Something pesky either big or small that either has no explanation for it's existence or shouldn't exist and yet does. Even if it's something small, that will inevitably become something far bigger once we try and study it and we find 1000 other inconveniences. Observing the behaviour of sub atomic particles was incredibly inconvenient. Our theories didn't predict we would find the universe behaves this way. Finding out that it did meant we'd come all this way only to find that when we got down to the basic stuff the universe was made up of none of the logical rules we'd so carefully thought we'd figured out quite nicely over thousands of years could be relied on.
All of a sudden we had to think the unthinkable and try and find new logical patterns in this chaos all while trying to make sense of the fact that such a different reality somehow is at the basis of our own. Quite embarrassingly inconvenient as it highlights how much science doesn't know anything near as fundamental as our arrogantly overstated belief on our own knowledge shows when we talk of things like "laws of physics", as if we knew anything near that substantial. We're clearly just reacting to everything and just expanding the edges of our map when something unexpected comes along while acting like we know so much that we're mainly just filling in the gaps. The best we can do is to identify a pattern in the Universes goings on and be accurate enough with our predictions that on the scale and application we're applying them to that the ways in which we're wrong doesn't lead anything to blow up or collapse or sink or something. Einstein discovered Newtons theory of Gravity worked just fine if restricted to certain conditions.