I agree that a "theory of everything", by encompassing "everything", is encompassing a unity, not a fragmented collection of artifacts.
I frequently query the perceptual context of people by asking: "How many things are there?" If they answer "one", then they perceive unity. If they answer "infinite", then they perceive separation based on their limited senses and mechanical-universe science (neither of which is ever more that a very rough Bohm explicate-order approximation of reality). If they say both one and an infinite number, the answer still resolves to one at its outer boundary.
Perhaps a review of the work by Ilya Progogine and Bernard Haisch would give you reason to consider adding "intelligence" to the mest - resulting in "imest". As I recall, Progogine proved that the universe is a self-organizing entity, exhibiting negative entropy, not the winding-down and cooling-off entropy of a mest mechanical universe. Haisch, in his book "The God Theory", asserts that the intelligence behind the self-organizing universe is "God".
It therefore leads one to perceive, as you assert, that "matter, energy, space, and time" are some of the attributes of the univese, given to it by the foundational intelligence.
My own thoughts of this are presented at
http://www.one-world-is.org, where I take a practical approach to managing any endeavor, and integrating and unifying any and all endeavors, from just such a "unity" starting point.
If you start with a "point" universe, and divide it into two pieces, the two pieces, and then more, still have "associations/links/strings/relationships/Bell-interconnection)" with attributes of distance (in space/time, flow, Aspect locality/non-locality) and such (e.g., matter/energy, pattern, potential), within the expanding boundary of the original point. The original point has then gained implicately-ordered (per Bohm) inner dimensions and properties. Everything as Zero-Point?
Roy