Is philosophy redundant if physics succeeds in finding symmetries that unify the four fundamental forces?

Physics is in pursuit of a theory of everything: an overarching theory that unifies the four force symmetries of nature, describing a world where space, time, and matter are defined in terms of a mathematical symmetry. <br><br>The same quest has already led to profoundly unifying insights about the natural world: Newton symmetrized natural philosophy by describing Planetary, terrestrial and celestial phenomena in a single conceptual framework. Then Faraday and Maxwell symmetrized the work of Newton, Coulomb, and Oersted by revealing the deeper underlying unity of electricity and magnetism. Then Einstein symmetrized Maxwell with Newton by revealing that space and time were merely a shadow of spacetime. Then Yang-Mills symmetrized electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces by revealing the deeper underlying unity of Yang-Mills fields and the Higgs mechanism of mass generation. <br><br>These symmetries have been found by discarding the ad hoc assumptions that had previously guided the development of the forces. <br><br>If we can have a theory of everything, where all phenomena that have been described by the ad hoc assumptions of natural science philosophy, the humanities, the spiritual tradition, the human experience, the arts, and culture can be described by a single theory by the symmetry principles of physics, then does that rendering the process of philosophizing redundant?