Can Physics ever be Complete if there is no Fundamental Level in Nature?

Dialectica 63 (2):205-208 (2009)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In their recent book Every Thing Must Go, Ladyman and Ross claim: (i) Physics is analytically complete since it is the only science that cannot be left incomplete. (ii) There might not be an ontologically fundamental level. (iii) We should not admit anything into our ontology unless it has explanatory and predictive utility. In this discussion note I aim to show that the ontological commitment in implies that the completeness of no science can be achieved where no fundamental level exists. Therefore, if claim requires a science to actually be complete in order to be considered as physics,, and if Ladyman and Ross's “tentative metaphysical hypothesis ... that there is no fundamental level” is true,, then there simply is no physics. Ladyman and Ross can, however, avoid this unwanted result if they merely require physics to ever strive for completeness rather than to already be complete.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SCHCPE-5
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
In Defence of Scientism.Ross, Don; Ladyman, James & Spurrett, David

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-04-28

Total views
513 ( #5,566 of 42,148 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #12,293 of 42,148 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.