Now that is exactly what scientists say, except that they use the term "cause" rather than "regularity".

Scientists generally do not talk about cause, because there is no satisfactory notion of cause in either philosophy or science. In the physical sciences they talk about symmetries and probabilities.

you know they mean "cause" and believe "cause" when they are off-guard and think about why night follows day.

You mean when they're being unscientific. How about answering my two earlier posts, addressed to you, so that your reader has a clearer idea of what you're supporting.

What is unscientific about causation?

I am supporting the view that there is an explanation of the succession of day and night.

The fact that there is no well defined notion of cause, in science. For physicists, cause is meaningless.So, should I take this to mean that you hold that a cause is an argument, in the form of a prediction, with laws of science as premises (in line with your support of the deductive nomological theory of explanation)? If so, the world includes an uncountable infinity of uncaused events, and if determinism is the claim that every event has a cause, then determinism is false.

free-will is beyond causation and therefore determinism

that you hold that a cause is an argument, in the form of a prediction, with laws of science as premises (in line with your support of the deductive nomological theory of explanation)? If so, the world includes an uncountable infinity of uncaused events

How does that conclusion follow from that premise?

The fact that there is no well defined notion of cause, in science. For physicists, cause is meaningless.So, should I take this to mean that you hold that a cause is an argument, in the form of a prediction, with laws of science as premises (in line with your support of the deductive nomological theory of explanation)? If so, the world includes an uncountable infinity of uncaused events, and if determinism is the claim that every event has a cause, then determinism is false.

1) there is, at most, a countable infinity of scientific explanations
2) according to our best physical theories, the world is continuous
3) if the world is continuous, there is an uncountable infinity of events
4) therefore the number of events for which there is a scientific explanation is a null set.

Nature is not like the game "Guess Who" in terms of we can't "ask" Nature.....is G(gravitational constant) = 6.67428x10^-11 m^3kg^-1s^-2? And then nature is like "oh you got me....you"

We do have very very good reason for thinking they are. There is, however, always that chance that the 1 in a trillion trillion is happening.

The universal gravitational constant is a value that can only be established empirically, therefore it is impossible that there could be any reason for that value to be what it is. It is a perfect example of the limits of science, mathematical randomness as the basis of the world and why talk of laws of nature is ultimately incoherent.

How far beyond, would you say?

And how do you know that?

Does your conclusion mean that there are no (true) scientific explanations.

If so, then what would you say about the explanation I have offered for the succession of day and night. That it isn't true?

well I just used that as an example...if you like insert your favorite "natural constant"....maybe Planck's

It doesn't matter if it was just an example, because it's a counter example. And all such constants required by the maths are irreducibly empirical, thus they are subject to the same considerations.

How So? Obviously they are empirical but the point is we have reason to believe these constants actually exist. we can run experiments presupposing those numbers and predict outcomes and results....that's why we actually use these numbers.....they really do seem to be there

What do you mean by exist? They're values used in mathematical equations, that's all. And they dont illustrate anything favourable to an ontology of realism about laws, or determinism.