If you could, what basic law of nature would you change?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My speedometer would be graduated in "C", and I could do 180 easy.

[apophenia]

Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

[Hermit]

Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.

[JimC]

Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.

So he caused the destruction of the said concept, I take it...

[Hermit]

Probably the law of causality, or inductive inference, if they aren't the same. Why settle for half anarchy when you can have the whole shebang.

I thought the concept of causality had been comprehensively destroyed at least by the time David Hume had pulled it to pieces.

So he caused the destruction of the said concept, I take it...

Lol. Good one.
1. He wasn't the first person to recognise the problem with induction and causation.
2. Most people still accept the concept of causality.
3. If most people didn't, the best you can say is that there is a correlation between Hume's writing on the topic and popular rejection of that concept.
So, that's a triple no.

As an afterthought, I'm not sure if "the law of causality" can even be rightfully regarded as a law of nature.

[JimC]

I rather think causality is a little like free-will - both are very difficult to defend on a philosophical basis, but both are quite handy as pragmatic guides to everyday life...

[Hermit]

I rather think causality is a little like free-will - both are very difficult to defend on a philosophical basis, but both are quite handy as pragmatic guides to everyday life...

Yes, they are indeed, but neither are necessary on pragmatic grounds. In science (and everyday life for that matter) correlation does the same job, and in social terms behaviourism does everything (except explain what "good" and "evil" is) the notion of free will is used for.

[apophenia]

Hume was a strict empiricist and as such couldn't derive causality from experience alone. It's unclear whether he would or would not have accepted causality on, say, Kantian grounds. Hume was also wont to argue the acceptance of certain things on the ground of mental habit or custom, even if they couldn't be strictly derived. Of course, this is somewhat beside the point, as the concept of causality and causality itself are not the same, and it's unclear that the concept is a requisite.

[Hermit]

Hume was a strict empiricist...

You don't say!

What else is there? Knowledge through pure reason and logic? intuition? Metaphysical insights? LSD? Flagellation? Dreams? Revelation? Transcendental meditation? Tarot card readings? Holy texts? A potpourri thereof?

Serious question. Do tell.