In the quantum world, cause isn't always prior to effect ( see Ojala, 2020) It is not surprising that theories of causation have undergone continuous improvement. At the heart of regularity theories of causality, the most influential of which has been examined in this article, namely Humean regularity theory, is the notion that a cause is frequently followed by its consequence. Regularity ideas have, in fact, become less and less popular since Hume's time. This article provides evidence for why, in part. In general, a [regularity]( perspective of laws falls short of offering a convincing explanation of causation. RVL must fully explain the nature of the laws of nature if it holds that regularity (as a result of natural laws) may explain causality. In order to account for the relationship between c and e, RVL is meant to create NRT, which in turn develops SRT. However, regularity cannot account for all phenomena. To be a useful theory of causation, RVL must at the very least define what law-like regularity is. Overall, the significant—possibly fundamental and entrenched—disadvantages of NRT exceed the NRT's advantages, such as avoiding logical necessity and HS. If rules are essentially regularities in and of themselves, a regularity view of laws does not really provide an effective account of causality. The cause is still unknown. On the one hand, if such occurrences are to explain causation, a more elaborate and convincing formulation of a law of nature is first needed. On the other hand, perhaps it is worthwhile to discuss the "consequences" of logical necessity so that (nomic) regularity theory might avoid focusing on mere regularity. The latter may well defeat the point, but NRT as it stands does not, if at all, account for causation. Written by: [Name Style](