Physics does not explain things without appealing to "more fundamental
principles." Actually, physics is a system of operational definitions
and laws. We go from atoms to nucloens to quarks and a simular path for
the laws always stopping at some junction where we cannot or have not
been able to go more deeper. Thus, in the end physics tells how without
really explaining.
When a materialist is asked what is going on the answer is that the laws
of physics control the action of all the parts (in a blind purposeless
way) and that then there were the initial conditions and thats all there
is. Burried in this is a major metaphysical assumption.
What is behind the laws of physics. How do particles know to repond to
gravity? How did these logical rules get established and what makes
them work? We run out of "more fundamental" constructs at some point
and must appeal to metaphysics. A consequence is that we get down to
some kind of information and upholding of laws which has a source of
some kind even though we don't know what it is. All things have a
predecedant except that which is infinite in time. SO:
Where did this information come from?
What forces the "laws of physics" to exist and gives them power over
material substances?
Naturalists must conceed that this power is there and that there is
something that makes the laws of physics work. To just say that "the
laws of physics just exist" is ignoring the real question which is why
and how. They appeal to some metaphysical entity or source to make the
universe work but they just will not recognize that "it" is there and
avoid this recognition by calling "it" the "laws of physics" and
appending a working rule that no one can ask why or how.
Bert Massie