Well, for one thing we haven't found any other anthills and that's very weird. Other than that, just
Stay Calm
and
Keep Doing Science
until you've scienced everything. The analogy with ants is weird, in that ants don't seem to be sentient and don't appear to have ant scientists that are trying to understand the mysteries of the universe. That makes it a bit hard to answer you on the level of the analogy, as such an answer would need to start with "assuming ants were sentient and had physicists, ...", from which point on the rest would be pure anthropocentric conjecture. We humans are a bit unique in that there are individuals who go "well I'm bored, guess I'll go observe the sun, moon and other bright discs in the night sky for decades and record their movements as precisely as I can, so that some other person, most probably of a race I've never seen from a place far beyond any horizon I've viewed, can read them centuries later and use them to come up with a heliocentric model of the solar system and from there on other mad toffs with nothing better to do could come up with the theory of gravity or something".
There is no reason to believe we will never ever find out some fundamental properties of the world, given enough time. If something exists, it can be interacted with and if it can be interacted with, it can be studied. If we can't interact with it ourselves, we'll make machines to interact with it. If we cannot make machines to interact with it, we'll study the results of other things interacting with it that we can observe. If it cannot be interacted with in any way via any method, its existence is largely a philosophical question.
It can be argued that we don't (and won't) have the absolute most simple, exact and perfect formulations for the rules of nature, but arguing whether those rules have a one true form and if there aren't equivalent ways to state them is again a largely philosophical question.