[Fredrick]

The quest to understand everything is a very old quest. In the old days the ones proposing explanations for everything were scientists/priests. Then and now the platforms of religion are diverse, but in general can be divided into four platforms:

A: a single god
B: multiple gods
C: no god
D: one cannot know about god with certainty.

Since the Renaissance scientists/priests became either more science- or more religion based, and today we see a clear distinction between the two. To explain everything in science we do not have four, but only two platforms available.

A: a unified field of forces
B: a field of forces (with connections but not unified).

As you can see there is a clear connection between the A's and the B's as the distinction between one version in which everything can be brought back to a single principle, and the other version in which multiple principles exist at the same time.

Platforms C and D do not exist in science. It would be weird to say that the four forces do not exist, and it would be weird to say that one cannot know anything about the four forces with certainty.

And this is where we are today. Most attention in the search for a theory of everything has been placed in an A-platform. There is hardly any discussion about a theory of everything existing on a B-platform. It doesn't mean everyone is behind the idea of the unified field: far from it. But somehow people are afraid to speak out against the A-platform.

What do you think? Are both A and B possible? Only A, only B? Take the poll and tell us what you think.