[eouwt]

> We do know that mathematical frameworks cannot be at the same time totally complete and internally consistent.

I take it you're referencing Godel's theorems here, but "consistent" and "complete" have rather technical (and somewhat limited) meanings within that context, so it's not clear to me how they'd usefully map onto the potential relationship between QM and GR?

[simiones]

That's a very good point. In particular, "complete" refers to the ability of the mathematical-logical system to prove every statement that is true within that system, in terms of the system.

This property is completely irrelevant to a theory like QM or GR - it is only relevant for a system that aims to be a universal foundation for mathematics (a formal language in which any mathematical statement whatsoever could be precisely formally encoded, and then proven or disproven).