[Fredrick]

Good question, Pat, and I would say 'yes,' but I would also say 'no.'

Let me explain how I see the five forces, including a separation of E and M, using a different concept to quickly show what I want to say this way:
In nature we discovered the following forces: father, mother, son, daughter, and family. These five forces are all that's out there, and everything can be brought back to these five forces.

We agree that gravity may be seen as 'family,' a force that is clearly noticeable, but a force that is hard(er) to explain within the whole set of forces than the other four forces.

If needed, and if I want to state that there are only 4 forces in total, then I can put both 'son' and 'daughter' in a single force called 'child.' Or, if I were to use the same set-up language-wise, I'd call it 'sondaughter force.' Either way, we end up with four forces: father, mother, family, and child.

Whether we consider E and M as separate forces or put them together as a unified force is truly not that important, as long as we understand what we are really addressing here. Yet seeing that this is a man-made distinction helps us understand why many people do not see the theory of everything, because they want to make a choice where making a choice is very distractive in our understanding the whole picture. Both ways to view E and M are correct, because they both capture the actual reality of E and M, and do not change anything about E and M. The danger, for us, is that we can get lost in a discussion which format is the only or the best format, or make ourselves one-eye blind when we overlook the complexity of EM and consider it simply a single force.

The title of my book In Search of a Cyclops is based on this phenomenon that we want to see things as cyclops, unified, and not as the two separate eyes they really are. Naturally, two eyes see one view, and if you wish you can call it 'vision.' But as a concept 'vision' is murky, while using the term 'two eyes' provides immediate and clear information.

A problem with using a different concept to explain the set-up of the forces is that we may then see something else as well, again based on specific concept-thinking contained within the words. For instance, when seeing the name 'son' we may think that the 'son' may become 'father' one day, and consider E (or M) to become S (or W) one day. It is important to know that the 'son' always stays the 'son' in respect to his own father, no matter if he turns out to be a father one day himself. Possibly, QM can provide the answer on how this all works, with an outcome always being a relative and never an absolute phenomenon, but nevertheless a phenomenon always occurring as a specifically declared result within the whole set of forces.