What are Laws of Nature?

[Angrboda]

I think this is basically taking a drunkard's walk around Hume's point that we don't see causes and effects, only correlations -- regularities. I think if I read you correctly, not having watched the video, regularity people want to say that's an unsurpassable barrier to saying anything more about what we see. I'm not sure Hume is right, but I think it's another one of those things in philosophy like knowledge or truth around which there is room for debate because nobody's broken through to a compelling description of what is actually happening. Nobody has 'nailed it', so to speak. We've got the important bits, but the special sauce that would make our conceptions rigorous and cogent is missing. Scientists want to say that they can identify cause and effect, but if you press them for what more than correlation is required to show causation, they tend to get irritable.