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

In their recent book Every Thing Must Go Ladyman and Ross (Ladyman et al. 2007) claim:

(1) Physics is analytically complete since it is the only science that cannot be left incomplete
(cf. Ladyman et al. 2007, 283).

(2) There might not be an ontologically fundamental level
(cf. Ladyman et al. 2007, 178).

(3) We should not admit anything into our ontology unless it has explanatory and predictive utility
(cf. Ladyman et al. 2007, 179).

In this discussion note I aim to show that the ontological commitment in (3) implies that the completeness of no science can be achieved where no fundamental level exists. Therefore, if claim (1) requires a science to actually be complete in order to be considered as physics, (1), and if Ladyman and Ross’s “tentative metaphysical hypothesis […] that there is no fundamental level” (178) is true, (2), 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.