Let me tell you who i am before hand. i am not a physicist, but as someone that has a fondness for all things amusing. In other words, i am an ignorant laymen. Now that i am done with introducing myself. Let me get right to my point: case 1: It is said that a "theory of eveything"( TOE) is a model such that it could describe everything. That it could describe the existence( big bang) of the universe itself. I am curious. If such a theory be found, than would it not have to describe its own existences? I understand that the nearest thing physicists have at the moment is something call String theory. Let say, String theory works, but the theory must itself depend, based on the very notion of a string. Would the theory have to describe the structure of a strings.Why must a string exist at all, and all the properties of the string?( a contradiction! because string is assumed to be fundemental) case 2: The laws of natures are nothing but regularities, generalizations we make about nature. An example would be einsteins second postulate: All observers would measure the speed of light to be constant regardless of their frame of reference. When ask why this is so? Physicist would say that law itself must be assume, because it is that way by the very nature that we are in this universe; The law is so, becuase that is how nature behaviors. A set of laws of nature would be nothing more than a set equations that describe how "nature behaves", but can it really tell us why there is a universe in the first place for it to describe? If we make an analogy. If the solfwares of a computer are the laws of natures, and the hardware of the computer are the universe. Can we really understand the solfware well enough to know the hardware?