Yeah, and Hume's problem of induction is that we don't have solid reasons for expecting the future to be like the past, because causality is not observed, but r

Yeah, and Hume's problem of induction is that we don't have solid reasons for expecting the future to be like the past, because causality is not observed, but rather is a habit of thought. We think the sun will shine tomorrow because laws of physics regarding nuclear fusion, but we can't prove they will be the same tomorrow morning. We just assume it. That goes for all science. Which is why Kant was motivated to try and save science from Hume. This isn't even a case where we can assign some probability. If the laws of physics just changed on us, we have no priors to calculate that. We can argue that they won't, but we have no proof of that. The laws may might just be contingent (A always follows B for no reason until it no longer does for no reason, because nothing causes it to follow or not follow, because there is no causality and laws are nothing but constant conjunction up to this point in time).