(And the 'instinctive brain' quite faster than that, it is said. And demonstrated.)

Try not to completely-miss the ineffable, y'know?
Bipeds' application of scientific principles is desultory, at Best.
And there is little 'scientific thought' (or even 'thought') requisite in being profoundly moved by an aria (or even an Oratorio.)

We still don't know much beyond Shite about the multiple-dimensions (8, 11 or __?) and their rules and interactions, even within our unimaginably teensy %Total of that 'finite-but-unbounded' Universe.
As to the subtle interactions of the Whole Enchilada and our so-called consciousness: we're still toddlers.

(Besides, we homo-saps made-up all those words about worlds; some creatures might do tensor analysis via a mixture of trills and smells. Personally I find more that is Thoughtful in Pratchett's description of a foremost mathematician on his World (a camel it was) -- than anything from super-string theory, thus far.

Einstein's metaphysical quips indicate that his 'lab' was not constrained to just those "pretty pebbles found on a beach" ... and what their elastic coefficients might be. In a statistical universe, Certainty is a drug. I wot.
So if you're all-that-Sure ... all you have to do is stay Natural, right?

When you preemptively foreclose all possible experiences of … that which you cannot analyze? Doesn't that just leave intellect, its fav acquired logical processes (and one's own guesstimates about Reason) even, say: to 'define' beauty?

Where does the ineffable / inexplicable demand corporate versions of the god-word? You presume, then imagine. As to a one believing that she 'understands the universe':
Why would anyone who fosters such a belief want to lop off all those other sensors and their respective … CPU's? (Ya think??) Sounds like voluntary amputation to me, unless you also think it's just 'the mind' which recognizes Jeremy Brett as The Sherlock Holmes. All by itself.

Difficult as it is to prove a negative, I can't imagine making a decision, say -- after asking the mind, ~ Are you all I Am?. I mean, whichever way the answer (and whence it arrives) -- isn't that a lot like someone saying to another, Look, I'm honest!

And we know why that's an impermissible statement. So why isn't the other?
(And as for the ineffable explaining itself.. and if it Can't: it Ain't.)
Oh, whence cometh this Sweet Reason which is elected the arbiter of the inexplicable? And how does one 'prove' (to self or other) that One Has this Sweet Reason, running on all 16 cylinders and explaining all that is Known and all that is Unknown?)

Wouldn't recursion be even more fun to parody?)

Clearly, YMDV