[Piers]

Using the observed uniformity in nature to create models of aspects of the universe, and then using those models to aid decision-making is fine.

The problem comes when you start claiming the these models are not just models of some aspects of the universe based on observed uniformity that we can use in decision making, but further are a true and accurate statement on how the universe really is.

I am saying that it appears clear to me that this is not true and never will be. That this is not just a statement on how cleaver we are but is a logical limitation imposed by our fundamentally finite nature, and hence the fine nature of any models we create.

I have not studied Hume’s position, however I think we mainly agree, maybe with a different etherises

Order needs to be assumed for us to reason sensibly about the universe, which does not suggest that the universe is ordered just that we need to assume it is to reason sensibly about it.

The point of contention is probably my claim that depending on exactly how you define order, it is likely the universe is fundamentally not ordered, despite the necessity for us to assume it is in order to operate within it.

Ignoring inbuilt limits like the lifetime of the universe, if you keep dropping your pencil enough times, eventually it will not to fall to the ground.