[Fredrick]

I think that is a beautiful answer. Not necessarily a correct answer, but beautiful nevertheless since in words you are able to deliver unification. I would almost leave it at this, but I can't ignore the little voice inside my head saying: this is just an answer of the word unification in language, not of unification.

Einstein's relativity for me means that what is seen and measured by one is not necessarily in perfect harmony with the same event seen and measured by someone else. The conflict he recognized was delivered to us with the term 'relativity.' It did not become known as 'unification' because it did not deliver unification. It did give an explanation about our reality in which our own position is vitally important to knowing/understanding reality.

I do not deny the relationships that exist. But what came first? Was there a relationship first or was there conflict first? It can get mirky to keep both features in their own spots since they have so much in common. I often invoke the words my mother would give me in situations like this: a cow is an animal, but an animal is not necessarily a cow. We do not have the ultimate answer yet (well, maybe we already do), so the correct thing to say is that a theory proposing unification is a TOE, but a TOE is not necessarily a theory based on unification.

A TOE would of course deliver an explanation how everything fits (or doesn't fit) together.