I do think we will come closer and closer to the underlying formulation in terms of the fundamental physics of our Universe. When it comes to describing nature at the energy and length scales of our everyday experience, we nailed it pretty much. It’s in the extreme regions of spacetime where we’re still reaching in the dark.

However, I also think that the phrase “all of nature” makes it difficult to answer as it seems slightly ambiguous. Assuming human beings are a subset of “nature”, I’m not sure that a “fundamental equation of the Universe” will ever count as a satisfying description of emergent phenomena such as psychology, language, economy, politics, paintings, music, poetry, etc.

So, “all of nature”? In a way, yes, since this as of yet unknown single expression should underlie all of the Universe. Or, put differently, all known and unknown laws of physics ought to be derivable from this single expression.

In a way, no, since it still won’t give you an algorithm for the experience of listening to a mesmerizing poetry slam performance, for instance.

I heard Prof Gerard ‘t Hooft say in one of his lectures in Utrecht, my hometown, that he is completely familiar with wave mechanics—classical and quantum. He knows how to calculate and predict the state of every single wave at any given moment in time. However, he’s still unable to surf.

As for the term “elegant”, well, I think it’s only appropriate to try and care as much for elegance as the Universe cares for it.