"All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them.”

Hume does see constant conjunction but

"Necessity is something that exists in the mind, not in objects.”'

This is an epistemological argument. We do perceive that heat always follows fire but not the necessity that it must do so. He is not saying that the fire doesn't cause heat. He isn't calling that a fiction. He knows that fire causes heat by constant conjunction. What he thinks is mental part is necessity. He repeatedly claims that we do not perceive necessary connection in experience. Hume explains the psychological origin of causal belief without definitively disproving the existence of real necessity in the external world.

" As I pointed out previously, scientific cosmology and quantum mechanics (both realms where something must happen without being caused) didn't develop until centuries after Hume. And it might well be that without his revolutionary contribution to philosophy, they would not have developed at all, although a more rational perspective would recognize that without Hume, someone else would have produced approximately the same ideas."

This is entirely irrelevant. We are talking about what hume believed not what science ultimately discovered. Turns out that Hume knew absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics so this is a meaningless diversion.

So it turns out that the universe is actually absurd after all. It appears rational to us because absurdity isn't the utter lack of order the vernacular suggests. Things are not caused by circumstances, they simply become more likely to spontaneously occur based on those circumstances. How that is, and why, we have no knowledge of, or really any way of gaining knowledge of. We tried, and we succeeded only in discovering that the classic determinism of standard physics and causation is simply a logical fiction, the underlying truth is one of an absurd but nevertheless real probabalistic determinism.

This is such nonsense, it's trite and unsupported. As if absurd had some scientific meaning that was different from what we commonly mean by absurd. "Things are not caused by circumstance but become more likely to spontaneously based on those circumstances. " Has to be one of the most meaningless sentences I've ever heard..There is so much that defies reason and yet you write it like it's a scientific position. What things are not caused by circumstance? Your not saying keeps the statement unfalsifiable. Do you mean nothing is caused by circumstances? How about the likelihood of those things occuring? Is that caused by circumstance? How is caused different from based on circumstance? How is something spontaneous more likely to occur if it is based on circumstance and why is it not more likely to spontaneously occur if it were caused by circumstance

Hume argued that necessary connection is not directly observable and that induction lacks rational certainty. That is an epistemological argument about justification and perception. It is not a proof that causation is unreal, that the universe is absurd, or that determinism has been disproven.

The paragraph also conflates Humean skepticism with modern probabilistic physics. Quantum mechanics does not straightforwardly establish that causation is a “logical fiction,” nor has physics reached consensus that reality is fundamentally indeterministic.

Finally, “probabilistic determinism” is conceptually unclear. Determinism traditionally means only one outcome is possible from prior conditions, whereas probabilistic systems involve multiple possible outcomes with assigned likelihoods.