If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward in time will work. If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will not continue then examining the past regularity and projecting it forward is no better and no worse than random guessing.

I'm saying they were purposely designed to be that way.
That seems like a better answer than just saying ,"they are what they are"

I'm saying they were purposely designed to be that way.
That seems like a better answer than just saying ,"they are what they are"

If the random world we are in is one in which the regularity will continue except that snakes will no longer be poisonous, then acting on the basis of that regularity and exception will work.

You are privileging the possibility of complete regularity, just because it is the simplest possibility to conceptualize.

No, I'm not. Regularity is the only way that I can get odds better than random guessing. So, it's better to just adopt induction because I can't do any worse and I might even be able to do much better.

Yes, you know when I first came to this forum it was with thoughts about probability and a kind of existential look at it... our experience of seeing things probabalistically.

One of the folks on the forum pointed out to me: most of the time, probability is used to simply get a handle on what happens.

He didn't use the word regularity, but that's along the same lines. It's understood that statistics can't show us a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, but we still use probability to connect things... the details of the cause being absent. In this, we might lack the kind of confidence we'd have if we had more detail... but as I mentioned before... if we examine the models that are incorporated into our causal conceptions, we might notice that total confidence isn't warranted there anyway. So we live with like... acceptable levels of confidence... that sort of thing... never 100%... not unless we want to set ourselves up for dunce-hood when our understanding evolves. And it does... regularly.

1. Lung cancer regularly follows a lifetime of smoking cigarettes.
2. Lung cancer is caused by a lifetime of smoking cigarettes.

I already agree with (1) and that fits with my view that the universe is random. All I need to know is (1) to avoid smoking cigarettes and getting cancer. To go from (1) to (2) adds nothing at all except some mysterious untestable necessary relationship.

How come, if they mean the same?

Either quote where I said that or stop making strawman arguments.

That's not the same as what you accused me of saying. So, you were making a strawman argument.

1. Lung cancer regularly follows a lifetime of smoking cigarettes.
2. Lung cancer is caused by a lifetime of smoking cigarettes.

My point was, the difference between (1) and (2) is irrelevant as long as I'm trying to avoid lung cancer. In fact, it's not just this specific case. It can be generalized.

1. Y regularly follows doing X.
2. Y is caused by doing X.

If I want to avoid Y then not doing X is the way to go, which I can learn from (1) equally as well as (2). Please try to address the argument as given. The quote feature helps with that.

3. Day is regularly followed by night.
and,
4. Day causes night.

Or, do you think there is a difference?

How about a straight answer, this time? No more, "relevant to this or that".

What I want to know is what you think is the difference between X is regularly followed by Y, and X causes Y. Let's hear it for truth and justice.

For X to cause Y that would mean that it is physically impossible for Y not to follow X. I have no reason to believe that nor do I really care when all I want to do is predict Y.

The difference is that I can observe and test for regularities but causes are mysterious. For X to cause Y that would mean that it is physically impossible for Y not to follow X. I have no reason to believe that nor do I really care when all I want to do is predict Y.

So, what about the truth values of the two? Never mind what you care about. Or about what is mysterious. That is all fluff and obscurity. What is the difference, if any, between:

3. Day is regularly followed by night.
4. Day causes night.

And why?

Hint. All astronomers believe that 3 is true, but 4 is false

I've already explained the difference. The difference is that we can observe (3) but (4) is mysterious and untestable. The fact that astronomers don't believe one mysterious and untestable thing doesn't make the others any less mysterious and untestable.

Also, if a planet is orbiting between multiple stars then there could be a planet where there is no night and (3) would not be perfectly regular.

Regularity is the only way that I can get odds better than random guessing. So, it's better to just adopt induction because I can't do any worse and I might even be able to do much better.

How can regularity give you better odds, if there are no physical laws? What grounds have you for believing you might be able to do much better by adopting induction?

I asked you how they differ in truth value. Do you think they are both true, both false, or one true and the other false (and which).

If regularities exist then induction is the best method. If they don't exist then I can't do any worse with induction than I could with random guessing. Therefore in all cases, induction is the best choice.

No. Without physical laws, induction is as good as random guessing. No better, and no worse.

If there are no physical laws, regularities can only "exist" in the past and the present. Thus they cannot support inductive prediction, which relates to the future.