[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hume argued that there is no way to deductively prove that nature is ordered

[/ QUOTE ]

Can certainly agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
and therefore must be presupposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I would disagree. I can see no reason to make this assumption apart from as a mental exercise.

Intuitively it seems clear to me that the universe is not ordered (in your sense of ‘abides by physical laws/rules’), however it is also necessary to assume the universe is ordered in order for us to reason meaningfully about it.

So making an assumption of an ordered universe is a pragmatic pandering to our own limitations rather than a statement about how the universe really is.

Life just shows us how localised ordered patens can arise out of chaotic forces. Just looking at the fractural patens of chaos theory should illustrate my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the universe at least appears ordered is the presupposition that all of empirical science operates on. If the universe did not at the very least appear ordered then we would be completely unable to make accurate predictions about physical phenomena (or indeed just function normally in our day to day lives).

Hume's point was that one could not establish on rational grounds (i.e., by argument) that the universe operates according to universal laws, despite the fact that everything in our experience seems to show that it does. The reason one could not show this is because it is only by induction that we could provide a cogent argument to the conclusion that nature is uniform, and all inductive arguments must themselves presuppose the uniformity of nature.

To disagree that at least prima facie nature appears uniform is to make a claim that neither Hume nor any philosopher of science I know, including both those who ultimately agree with Hume's skepticism about induction and those who disagree, has made.

In short, the reason to make the assumption that nature is uniform is as plain as the nose on your face, as they say.