Lets say, I am an astronomer, Bob Down jr. When I was twelve years old I was a perfect naive realist. I did know nature as something bigger and more powerful than me. Not that I had no power. No doubt, only two decades later I would have been traveled to Alpha Centauri. Each morning I saw the sun shining, the central star of our planetary system. Earth was rotating to make morning and evening, and a tilted rotation axis made summer and winter.
I started my scientific career. But somehow it also came and I started reading philosophers. First was Spinoza, of course. Decades later I made it up to Heidegger and I started to accept that I would never even have asked, how the morning is made up, if I not always already would have been seeing the sun rising. All my science was already confined in the first place between birth and death (had some Levinas too). Nature was all and only what I could see.
Then I catched up to Meillassoux. Finally! For sure I know the sun is not rising, but the earth is rotating. It was rotating long before mankind already (but not always already). And yes, I know there is a time before and after earth, I am an astronomer. And yes, I have had enough physics courses to know about the facticity of chaos (turbulence, non-linear systems, even that quantum stuff). Nothing is made, also not morning and evening. The earth rotates, period. No purpose.
But wait: my job is to discover the laws of nature. And now the chaos is such that even these laws may change at any instant? This is a complete different chaos than what I know about! The chaos of natural sciences is still deterministic (and yes, I guess even quantum stuff is). And even if it turns out some constants of nature are not that constant at all, it would still be possible to find a non-changing law including that.
These days, when I see the sun rising, I am truly shocked. Of course I fell apart from Heidegger. And I know it's wrong. But is it? What if over night the laws of nature have changed? What if the sun is really rising? Am I then one who always already believed the earth is rotating, but it is not? How can I even still know that? What time includes both phases of nature? And if there is no such time, if all this only happens due to a singular rupture in absolute time itself: how can we ever know it has changed? Wouldn't memory rupture as well? How, then, can we even do natural science? And if not, how can we ever know for sure the earth was rotating before the time of man? What, if back then the sun was rising?
To be honest, I don't buy it. Probably, I don't even understand it. Please, help me, I'm just a poor astronomer afraid of every new morning. Or is all this believe in changing laws just the mirror of having natural science a language game, but now nature itself is gaming? Alas, this would be salvation! We could come up with a game theory!
Given all that, how can I become a true non-correlationist realist in the face of changing laws of nature?
Or in other words, I'd like to see a trained philosopher take over the position of specultaive realism, especially Meillassoux, and tell me how the claim of changing law of nature does not collapse the ancestral argument.
And now that I'm done with Brassier, I could add the same question for his "posteriority" argument as well. What if laws of nature change suddenly and there will never be a Big Crunch but instead a period of eternal life? In my understanding, both arguments are build upon certainty of a world before and after life. But doesn't the claim of changing law of nature undermine exactly that certainty?
Some References: Heidegger, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit); Meillassoux, After Finitude (Apres la finitude); Ray Brassier, Nihil Unbound