How does metaphysical necessity relate to the modal force often associated with natural laws (natural necessity)? Fine ( 2002 ) argues that natural necessity can neither be obtained from metaphysical necessity via forms of restriction nor of relativization — and therefore pleads for modal pluralism concerning natural and metaphysical necessity. Wolff ( Philosophy of Science, 80 (5), 898–906, 2013 ) aims at providing illustrative examples in support of applying Fine’s view to the laws of nature with specific recourse to the laws of physics: On the one hand, Wolff takes it that equations of motion can count as examples of physical laws that are only naturally but not metaphysically necessary. On the other hand, Wolff argues that a certain conservation law obtainable via Noether’s second theorem is an instance of a metaphysically necessary physical law. I show how Wolff’s example for a putatively metaphysically necessary conservation law fails but argue that so-called topological currents can nevertheless count as metaphysically necessary conservation laws carrying physical content. I conclude with a remark on employing physics to answer questions in metaphysics.

中文翻译：

---

关于物理学的形而上必要定律

形而上学的必要性与通常与自然法则相关的模态力（自然必要性）如何相关？芬（Fine，2002）认为，自然的必然性既不能通过限制形式也不能通过相对化而从形而上学的必然性中获得，因此，人们主张对自然和形而上学的必然性进行模态多元化。Wolff（科学哲学，80（5），898–906，2013）旨在提供说明性的例子，以支持将Fine的观点应用于自然定律，并具体诉诸于物理定律：一方面，Wolff认为运动方程可以算作只是自然而然的形而上学的物理定律的例子。另一方面，沃尔夫（Wolff）认为，可以通过Noether第二定理获得的某个守恒定律是形而上必要的物理定律的一个实例。我展示了沃尔夫关于假定的形而上必要的守恒定律的例子是如何失败的，但他指出，所谓的拓扑电流仍然可以算作带有物理成分的形上必不可少的守恒定律。最后，我将谈谈运用物理学回答形而上学中的问题。