[RightWhale]

The sciences as far as they apply to value, which might seem like an odd thing for science to consider, have to consider each circumstance and what the consequences of a particular act of doing or making (ethics or aesthetics) might be. Science would like to find the most general law, but this can never be done except in limited circumstances. As soon as the universe (can't say the whole universe or the entire universe since we can't even see all of it) is considered the circumstances become unlimited and no general solution with all consequences known is possible.

The current quest for a Grand Unified Theory is restricted to how the four basic forces work. The odd man out continues to be gravity, which is doubly odd since it was the first basic force identified. Hilbert was the reigning saint of Logical Positivism, for which unfortunately Goedel, a close friend of Einstein, proved a couple of theorems that showed the axiom system impossible. Goedel also showed that if time travel is possible under Relativity, which it is, then time is not.

That doesn't leave much beyond particular circumstances except a beehive of hopes stinging and buzzing.
--Dos Passos

[djf]

I'm fairly certain that even if we had a complete, consistent description and understanding of the four forces, we would still have good answerable and unanswerable questions.

The domain of mathematics is not the same as the domain of language and both are diferent from the domain of experiment/observables and only partly overlap with the domain of cause/effect.

Perhaps someday we will have the needed tools to come up with a more complete, inclusive and expansive description of the universe. But if we CAN'T, then that itself should tell us something.
Perhaps something profoundly disturbing. Or profoundly magical. Who knows!