Currently, we adopt the following three-component paradigm for studying candidate theories of everything. 

1. Dynamical laws
   Part of the task is to identify the correct physical degrees of freedom, while part of it is to find the correct dynamical laws governing those degrees of freedom. In contemporary physics, these are the main topics of particle physics and quantum gravity.
2. Boundary conditions
   The dynamical laws must be supplied with boundary conditions toward making predictions. In contemporary physics, the study of boundary conditions is a main topic of (quantum) cosmology.
3. Empirical prescriptions
   To qualify as a theory of everything, the theory must offer an unambiguous prescription for extracting empirical predictions. This task is non-trivial in quantum theories because of the measurement problem.
   In contemporary physics, the measurement problem is a main topic of quantum foundations.

This three-component paradigm is used for organizing, rather than assertive purposes. This paradigm provides a structure to analyze most current ideas and works. However, we fully acknowledge the possible need to transcend this paradigm to reach the true theory.

For instance, not too long ago, few would consider first principles for the boundary conditions of the universe. Advances in cosmology prompted us to think deeper on the topic, and now boundary condition has become a central topic of quantum cosmology. Similarly, it could be that as our understandings advance, the three-component paradigm needs expanded or revised.

This site is run under the guidance of TRUTH and BAYESIAN.

• TRUTH is the tenet to make no compromise of truth.
• BAYESIAN is the tenet to apply Bayesian thoughts in the pursuit of truth. This means assigning probabilities to hypotheses, and updating them as more evidence and information become available.

The following illustrates how TRUTH and BAYESIAN guide our conducts.

In sociological and political discussions on scientific topics, one often encounters statements like:

“Fundamental physics needs quantum foundations, because it fosters quantum technology.”

“String theory is successful even if it turns out false, for applications in math and condensed matter.”

TRUTH guides one to think as follows for the scientific matters themselves:

“Without discovering the truth about the measurement problem, the enterprise of quantum foundations remains unsuccessful.”

“If string theory does not offer a true description of our universe, it is a failure.”

As long as we still miss the truth, the truth is still missing.

In interactions among professional scientists, one often encounters statements like:

“I’m interested in quantum gravity, and I study loop quantum gravity.”

“I’m interested in quantum foundations, and I believe in the Everettian interpretation.”

BAYESIAN instead requires statements like:

“I study quantum gravity. My current credence in loop quantum gravity to offer the true description of Nature is 20%.”

“I study quantum foundations. My current credence in the Everettian interpretation to be true is 20%.”

In TRUTH, the goal is to discover the truth, rather than to promote any particular school of thought. BAYESIAN is the more suitable approach for this goal