Precisely because of its all-inclusive character the paradox of existence can hypothetically be used to produce the holy grail of physics, a Theory of Everything (TOE). All of the widely respected physical theories and leading TOE candidates today possess a property known as Supersymmetry that correlates quite nicely with synergistic ideas concerning the paradox of existence. The theory of Relativity itself is a strikingly holistic paradoxical theory with its self-referential Strong Equivalency Principle which defies everyday observation by stating that mass equals energy and space equals time. In addition, the non-local effects of Quantum Mechanics are compatible with the concept of Oneness as is also the space-time continuum of Relativity. The paradoxical similarities of these leading theories suggest that physics may very well be approaching the extreme limits of experimental observation where the paradox of existence becomes pronounced. Therefore further progress in reconciling these theories could require a yet again more paradoxical theory that incorporates the paradox of existence more directly and profoundly than the current Standard theory. This position is further supported by the long-standing and growing consensus among theoretical physicists that their understanding of space-time needs to become more “fuzzy” if further progress is to be made in reconciling Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Two steps forward, one step backwards, is a fitting metaphor for this mounting consensus. Usually in order to further our fundamental understand of something, it has proven necessary to first relinquish cherished beliefs about the subject. Because our current understanding of space-time is already extremely paradoxical this state of affairs strongly suggests that to develop a “fuzzier” position on the subject may require we also address the paradox of existence itself, one of the few things our current ideas of mass-energy, space-time, and the laws of physics do not agree upon. Essentially Quantum Mechanics implies everything is random while Relativity hints at a fatalistic universe. Unfortunately for those who might prefer quick solutions to the sometimes-slow process of research, holistic theories can be extremely difficult to develop. Just as the future is hard to predict, the properties of synergy in any given situation or context are difficult to forecast and appear likely to be impossible to accurately calculate beyond a certain extent. We know the predictability as well as the properties of specific things is different when together than when apart, but exactly how they differ can turn out to be as surprising as a good joke. From a materialistic perspective, ours is recognizably a universe of force(s) and unceasing change. One of the few exceptions to this is the paradox of existence, which has never been proven to change or exert physical force yet by definition is inseparable from all force(s) and change. Thus it may represent an unconditionally receptive and supportive framework upon which all change occurs as the forces of nature exert themselves. A theory of everything incorporating a holistic paradoxical view of existence seems likely then to poetically take into account four rudimentary interpretations each of which becomes evident according to the particular context in which we consider the theory. The simplest metaphysical version would be that the paradox of existence is merely a shadowy or ethereal backdrop against which nature is manifest and exactly what is the origin of existence is unobservable and unverifiable but can be modeled with precision. A second simplistic synergistic perspective is that the paradox of existence itself somehow creates nature. The third possible interpretation is that of Oneness and infers that nature and the paradox of existence constitute one and the same thing (again, whatever that might happen to be.) And the last significant account, if you care to call it that, would be that the paradox of existence is utterly ineffable and somehow all of these explanations and none of them at the same time. Each distinctive interpretation of a paradoxical theory of existence is likely to possess unique strengths and weaknesses depending upon the particular application and context. For example, from the basic interpretation of Oneness I mentioned, such a theory might provide invaluable insight into the degree of influence of the observer on measurements, but with little or no direct physical application other than determining how best to go about pragmatically verifying the influence of the observer on experiments and vice versa. The opposite might be true for the metaphysical interpretation, which could conceivably provide numerous physical applications with little or no indication of how much an observer affects experimental results. Interpreted as a synergistic paradox (i.e. a self-perpetuating hermaphroditic Mother Nature if you will) such a TOE might offer unique and sweeping insights into the organizational hierarchy of the forces and laws of nature but with limited obvious use in distinctive contexts or situations. And, last but not least, viewed from the most paradoxical perspective of all a TOE could afford some individuals spiritual enlightenment, or, at least humor or artistic appreciation, while defying attempts at physical analysis. These multiple contexts and interpretations, interacting with each other and creating yet again new contexts and interpretations based on qualitative assumptions, circular logic, and allegories necessitate the development of extremely paradoxical theories be as much of a personal artistic endeavor as it is a deductive science. In comparison to using linear logical metaphysical methods with their a priori assumptions about physical reality and our role in it, holistic theories tend to be much more intuitive and artistic or, failing those approaches, arrived at by default as much as deduction as was the case with Quantum Mechanics. Paradox involves not only more allegorical and convoluted logic, but also a pointedly personal emotional and cognitive framework. Every relationship is perhaps unique and changes with the context, including the relationship of the physical universe with that of the paradox of existence. But the paradox of existence presents us with what appears to be the most unique of all relationships and one of the few likely to be pertinent in all contexts. It is clearly as supernatural as anything science has ever confronted and failed to dismiss and, yet, on the face of it may possess synergistic effects. Only the tiniest possible glimmer of hope is evident at the present time that the mystery of existence and its full impact on us will ever be explained by science. However, this does not appear to rule out constructing theories around the concept without signifying anything in nature itself is supernatural. Hence the simplest scientifically verifiable account of everything in the physical universe may well be, ironically or humorously depending upon your point of view, also suggestive of the supernatural and, yet, one of the most cogent and useful in physics.