What are Laws of Nature?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ordered regularities aren't a fundamental reality?

Well regularity theorists only want to talk about what we observe with regularity as being essential to something being a law of nature. They think that a "fundamental reality" behind such observations is a "metaphysical hangover"... a way we used to think about things in say, Newton's time. But something we have largely outgrown.

Our intuitions say that there actually is some fundamental reality causing these observations, but again: metaphysical hangover. The empiricist wants to say that even if there were such a fundamental reality, we could never confirm it or say anything factual about it. The only thing we can confirm or say something factual about is our observations. And when speaking of observations we can only say what we observe with regularity and what we do not.

Observations seem rather late, epistemologically speaking, compared to sensations, apprehensions, perceptions, and even conceptions and interpretations. I see a lot of heavy lifting needed to justify observation as fundamental basis for knowledge.