Why a Scientific Theory of Everything can never be a theory of 'Everything'

One of the quests of science is to have an explanation for everything. It is famously known as the Theory of Everything. ToE.

The 'everything' that science deals with is limited to the observable phenomena. Anything that is observable, measurable, describable forms part of the realm of science. 

Size, weight, speed, volume, etc are phenomena that can be 'observed'. By observation, it is meant perception. An act that suggests the existence of something.

Even abstract notions are observable. For instance a complicated mathematical theorem, exists in the form of symbols. the symbols are not necessarily pen and ink on paper, or the electrical/mechanical impulses in a system. It could exist as a sound, or a thought, and as long as it is observable, they belong to the concrete realm of science.

Emotions, and other psychological phenomena can be observed through the behavior of a person, and can be postulated and proven to exist.

So, science in its quest for an explanation of Everything, only seeks things that are observable.

One might question, if something exists that is not observable, then where is the proof for its existence? Why are we going to bother about science not dealing with a non-existing entity?

If say there exists an entity A, and it is not observable, then we can say that the science is not including everything. Because it ignored A, since its not observable.

Now, How do you 'find' an example of such an entity that is not observable?

In other words, an entity that does not have any physical attribute is impossible to find! by definition it is not observable.

Science concludes, since we will eventually explain everything that is observable, and only observable things exist, we will eventually have a Theory of Everything.

Well, here is a simple experiment. Ask yourself this simple question. Do I exist? If you answered 'Yes', try to find that 'You'. Try to find You in this observable Universe.

You might in a simplistic sense say well, here am I, pointing to your body, and say this is Me. But is it that simple? Every single organ that you have is some thing that 'you' 'have'! 

I have a Hand. so I am distinct from the Hand. 

I have a body, so I am distinct from the body. 

I have life, the physiological energy, and hence I am  distinct from life. 

I have a mind, I am distinct from my mind. 

I have thoughts, so I am distinct from thoughts.

you can go on like this, and will conclude that 'Everything' that you think is part of you, and is Observable, is distinct from you. 

I am in Chennai, I am distinct from Chennai, 

I am in San Francisco, I am distinct from San Francisco,

Wherever I am, I am distinct from Space.

I am in such and such a place, at such and such a time, So  I am associated with Time. 

Wherever and Whenever I am , I am distinct from Time.

Every single such attribute that is observable, is distinct from me. and yet I exist. How?please refer to the point where you admitted to it.

So, there you go. You have a rather important entity, which is You, which is not observable, and hence Science will not include you in its future Theory of Everything!

Hence the Theory of Everything, when its there, will never be a Theory of Everything :)

Btw, if you had negated your existence, then none of this really matter.