Hi Gary
You said:
"All we're really doing with physics is coming up with a model of nature. The model's media has to be something that is logically self consistent. It can be represented with compass and straight edge or the symbols of calculus or a numerical algorithm in a computer or what ever."

I agree with you here, Our "depth of " understanding nature, depends on our understanding of the "tools" that we use to verify "reality". Mathematics represents a good "tool" for deciphering nature.

You said:
The root problem with a "Theory of Everything" is: Do we have adequate symbols to model it? Or to put it in other words: Which is more fundamental, physics or mathematics? I would argue that ultimately mathematics is founded upon physics. You can only go so deep describing physics with mathematics until you drop within mathematic's own physical basis and then you're forced to use another media for modelling. I'm now touching upon the subject of metamathematics which is something that I do not understand
Gary .

I have been accused of not understanding mathematics, let alone "metamathematics".

But I DO understand that we must have a thorough understanding of the symbols and the CONCEPTS that the symbols represent before we can thoroughly understand what the mathematical numbers are telling us.

For instance if one does not understand the words "two" "plus" "two" then the answer "four" will have no meaning.
Similarly if we take Einstein's formula of E=MC^2 and do not understand what the "real" meaning behind the symbols and their arrangement in the formula are, then how can we hope to understand the resulting answer.

It would help us immensely if we knew what the "M" or "mass" is made of, or even "how" it is put together in its "fundamental state".

Also we should understand what "energy" is in its "fundamental state".

Although the E=MC^2 implies far more than the simple calculation of numbers, the understanding of it, by many people, seems to be limited to the following steps.

C^2= If you take the speed of light and multiply it by itself you get the number represented by C^2.
Then, if you take a quantity of (a poorly understood existence called) "mass" and multiply it by the number you obtained in the C^2 calculation, then the answer that you get will represent the amount of "work" (or energy) that is "stored" within that quantity of the poorly understood existence called "mass".

I have a slightly different view on the subject matter and if anyone here shows a genuine interest in knowing about it, I will gladly share it with them.

Johannes